On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 02:21:38PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 12:50 AM Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > +#define DRIVE_STRENGTH 9 > > > +#define DRIVE_STRENGTH_UA 10 > > > > > > drive-strength = <8>; // 8mA drive strength > > > > > > bias-type = <DRIVE_STRENGTH>; > > > > > > OK where do I put my 8 mA now? > > > > > If you look at the 2/2 patch, this property only reads BIAS_ > > values, which can't coexist anyway. > > Well the DT bindings have to be consistent and clear on their > own, no matter how Linux implements it. > > But I'm sure you can make YAML verification such that it is > impossible to use both schemes at the same time, and it's not > like I don't understand what you're getting at. We already don't enforce mutually exclusive combinations. Perhaps someone wants to fix that first? > What I need as input is mainly the DT bindings people opinion > on introducing another orthogonal way of doing something > that is already possible to do another way, just more convenient. > Because that is essentially what is happening here. It's really a 3rd way we're adding because the existing properties have 2 forms which IMO is worse than 2 disjoint ways of doing it. And since this new way can't represent some cases, I don't think it is an improvement. Rob
