On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 09:26:40PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sunday 19 January 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:11:41AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Ah, yes, if you add a cell that can be done. There'll still be the > > > "dead" first cell that will always be 0, but that's alright. > > > > Does it not mean that PWM specifications of: > > > > <&pwm1 0 n> <&pwm2 0 n> > > > > would need to be converted to: > > > > <&pwm1 0 n 0> <&pwm2 0 n 0> > > > > in every DT file referring to these PWMs - because isn't this just > > treated in DT as one single array of values? (If DT knew how many > > were in each specification, we wouldn't need the #foo-cells...) > > Right: if you change an existing dts file from #pwm-cells=<2> to > #pwm-cells=<3>, that requires changing all references to the pwm > controller at the same time. If both the per-soc .dtsi files > and the per-board .dts files contain references to the same pwm > controller, that can end up in significant work. I have not checked > if this is the case for i.MX though. Would this change imply that old dtbs would no longer work with new kernels? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
