Rob, On 03/13/2013 03:39 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
I fail to see what the hack is. The order of interrupt properties must be defined by the binding. interrupt-names is auxiliary data and must not be required by an OS.
It is clear that the order of the interrupts must be defined by the bindings. But how useful <resource>-names properties are when we cannot define them as required ? If an OS cannot rely on them then it must use some other, reliable, method to identify the resources, e.g. by hard coding the indexes. If we have to do it then why even bother with the <resource>-names properties ? I can see interrupt-names property specified as required in at least 2 bindings' documentation and all bindings having reg-names property define it as required. Are they wrong them ? Sorry to bother about perhaps obvious things, but I'm really confused now. -- Thanks, Sylwester -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
