On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:05:22AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >> > You often talk about ambiguities. Could you give an example what >> > ambiguities you mean? >> >> What happened was this pins = ; arguments were sometimes >> strings and sometimes integers, that becomes strange to handle >> in code, ambiguous. > > I see. I like naming it 'pinmux' because that's what it is: pins and > mux settings. A plain 'pinno' suggests that it contains only pin mubers, > without mux setting. How about 'pin-no-mux'? We also could add an > explicit "pins-are-numbered" property instead of distinguishing this > by property names. I kind of like this "pins-are-numbered" thing. The other property for the pin, whether pinmux or pin-no-mux or pin-num-and-mux etc is no such big deal, as long as it's consistent and documented with the generic bindings. Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
