On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Am 05.05.2015 um 21:54 schrieb Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> Hi Neil, >> >> On 03/18/2015 01:58 AM, NeilBrown wrote: >>> here is version 3 of support for tty-slaves. >> >> Is there a v4 of this that I missed? I'm interested in seeing this to completion as well. > We did have a lengthy discussion about [PATCH 3/3] how to best (1) > represent the slave device in the device tree but as far as I am concerned, > I do not see that we have a consensus (2) and the device tree maintainers > have no comments or clear guidelines so far. I'm just catching up on the thread, but I agree with what Sebastian has said at least on regulators. > > BR, > Nikolaus > > (1) best with respect to maintainability, flexibility, common design patterns, > compatibility and some other factors I don’t know the correct english words for > (2) basically the slave can be described as a subnode like for I2C bus slaves > or the slave device can reference the uart it is connected to like for GPIOs > and regulators-- I'm not sure I follow the debate on sub-nodes, but it is a pretty well defined pattern that sub-nodes are describing a connection to parent nodes. Usually it follows the main/data connection and not some side-band connections like regulators or gpios. Rob > 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 -- 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
