On 2013-12-12 12:05, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 09:41:49AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>> A label property is still an option.
>>
>> Hmm, what do you mean? Label as in:
>>
>> foo : node {
>> };
>>
>> Isn't that 'foo' label only visible in DT itself, as a shortcut?
>
> Some driver use a "label" property like this:
>
> foo : node {
> label = "lcd";
>
> ...
> };
>
> See for example
>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partition.txt
Ah, I see. That kind of label was actually the first thing I did when
starting to work on DSS DT. But I removed it, as it didn't describe the
hardware and I didn't see others using anything similar.
But I guess one could argue it does describe hardware, not in electrical
level but in conceptual level.
The question is, do we need labeling for displays? For backward
compatibility omapdss would need it, but in general? I'm quite content
with having just display0, display1 etc. Using the alias node, those can
be fixed and display0 is always the same display.
Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
