On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:27:24PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:29:12PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > So, I actually agree that in the long term getting resource names in > > the DT would be a generally good thing. > > > > But doing so is a *huge* change in one of the very core semantics of > > all the DT bindings. It's not something that should be done lightly > > or quickly. It absolutely should not be tied to how this is handled > > the longer you take to change, the more complex will it be to > change. No, not really. > The longer we spend discussing the validity of _byname(), more > boards/archs/whatnot will be converted to DT without _byname() and after > a certain amount of them are converted, noone will be willing to change > and validate everything again. I'm not discussing the validity of _byname (Russell King is, but that's not an argument I have a position of). What I'm saying is that the kernel internal use of byname, and named resources in the DT are different things which should be approached independently. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
