On Sunday 18 March 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > Not enough information to check signature validity. Show Details > * Grant Likely wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:27:36 +0100, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > So if we decide to explicitly allow specifying names, then we can always add > > > a pwm-names property (or <name>-pwm-names respectively) to use as label and > > > fallback to the user OF device node name if that property is not present. > > > > After implementing both schemes (ie. interrupts+interrupt-names && [*-]gpios) > > I definitely prefer the fixed property name plus a separate names property. > > It is easier to use common code with that scheme, and easier to statically > > check for correctness. > > Okay. Would everyone be happy with "pwms" and "pwm-names"? Sounds good. I would have suggested "pwm", but the plural also works since that is used for "interrupts", too. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
