On 03/18/2013 04:27 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On 03/18/2013 01:11 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 03/18/2013 09:50 AM, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On 03/13/2013 05:42 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> Is that true for all foo-names properties, or only for interrupt-names? >> I was under the impression that foo-names was specifically invented so >> that the order of the entries didn't matter, and instead they could be >> requested by name. > > I think it depends on the specific name the property is tied too. For > interrupt and reg properties which have a long history and convention, > the order should be defined. IIRC, this was Grant's position too. For > new bindings, perhaps we can be more lenient. OK, that makes sense for interrupts/reg. Can we decide that clock-namess are new-style and that order is not significant? I guess gpio-names too? I guess this should be documented in whatever binding describes the core interrupts/reg-names/gpio-names/clock-names/dma-names properties. -- 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
 |