On 06/02/2012 04:19 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > [+devicetree-discuss and grant/rob] > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Mark Brown > <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:44:00PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> >>> Could you expand on "named property" a bit; I'm not quite sure what >>> you're getting at - literally a property with name "named" (which >>> would be the same as regulator-id under just a different property >>> name), or ...? >> >> Just a property where we only care about a name (ie, that the property >> is present). >> >>>> Can't we use the right hand side of this? It appears to just be >>>> syntactic sugar without any current meaning. >> >>> The stuff to the right of @ is the "unit address" and must match the >>> value in the reg property. Using that was the first proposal I had >>> above (which I also didn't like as much) >> >> The stuff to the left of the @ is just noise right now, though - it has >> no meaning currently. It's filled in with "regulator" because we need >> to put something there AFAICT. > > Right. In general (and historically) in the device tree, names of the > nodes should have meaning for the person reading the device tree, but > it's not meant to be used for software to figure out the hardware > configuration -- that should instead be handled through compatible + > other properties. > > Names are generally kept fairly generic (ethernet, cpus, memory, pci, etc). > > Where it starts to become gray area is when it comes down to specific > bindings, and essentially the device nodes underneath of those > devices. It's been generally accepted that we can put meaning to the > names there if needed, but it's still better to avoid it. > > I was originally OK with the regulator binding where names have > meaning, but after having looked at it a bit recently when looking at > bindings for some new boards we have, I realized that the original > suggestion for regulator bindings doesn't necessarily isolate the > naming dependencies to only be under the regulators in question. In > particular, for things such as fixed regulators, they can be located > at other places in the device tree. > > Maybe the solution to that case is to just aggregate them in one place > and make a pseudo-binding for that (or those, in case of multiple > locations). > > On the rest of the name-has-meaning discussion, I think it would be > cleaner to move away from it now while there's relatively few users of > it (with a migratin path), rather than revise it later. But I'll leave > it to Grant and Rob to decide which way the prefer things to be. I > think they might both be travelling around LC/LinuxCon events at the > moment though. I tend to agree with Steven's and Olof's comments in this thread. As the node names generally don't have much meaning, I don't think we should start now. We've already got multiple styles of bindings and I don't think we need more. Rob > > -Olof > _______________________________________________ > devicetree-discuss mailing list > devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
