* Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:27:36 +0100, Thierry Reding > <[email protected]> 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"? Thierry
pgpigHE3JLPmk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
