On Thursday, October 02, 2014 04:36:54 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 02:46:30PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 02 October 2014 15:15:08 Mika Westerberg wrote:
[cut]
>
> Putting everything to a single package results this:
>
> Package () { "pwms", Package () {"led-red", ^PWM0, 0, 10, "led-green", ^PWM0, 1, 10 }}
>
> But I think the below looks better:
I agree.
> Package () { "pwms", Package () {^PWM0, 0, 10, ^PWM0, 1, 10 }}
> Package () { "pwm-names", Package () {"led-red", "led-green"}}
>
> and it is trivial to match with the corresponding DT fragment.
>
> > }
> >
> > vs.
> >
> > pwm-slave {
> > pwms = <&pwm0 0 10>, <&pwm1 1 20>;
> > pwm-names = "led-red", "led-green";
> > };
> >
>
> I don't have strong feelings which way it should be. The current
> implementation limits references so that you can have only integer
> arguments, like {ref0, int, int, ref1, int} but if people think it is
> better to allow strings there as well, it can be changed.
>
> I would like to get comments from Darren and Rafael about this, though.
In my opinion there needs to be a "canonical" representation of the
binding that people always can expect to work. It seems reasonable to
use the one exactly matching the DT representation for that.
In addition to that we can add other representations that the code will
also parse correctly as alternatives. In the future.
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
