On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Matt Porter <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 02:11:35PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote: >> Am Mittwoch, den 14.11.2012, 19:15 +0000 schrieb Grant Likely: >> > Assuming it is appropriate to put into the device tree, I'd suggest a >> > different name. Instead of 'order', how about 'sram-alloc-align' (in >> > address bits) or 'sram-alloc-min-size' (in bytes). >> >> A size in bytes would be the most obvious to me, although that allows to >> enter values that are not a power of two. > > I think the implication is that this isn't even a h/w characteristic of > SRAM and, as such, does not belong in a DT binding (for that reason I > don't mind seeing that it's been dropped in v6). It's unfortunate since > it's otherwise a very clean solution. I sure wish I had a "Software > Tree" I could pass in too. ;)
It is however in that grey area where which it isn't really a characteristic of the hardware it has a very strong implied usage. I do push back on things like this not because they shouldn't be done, but rather to make sure it is properly thought through before going ahead. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
