On 01/31/2013 10:11 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:09:37AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 01/30/2013 06:35 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> I suggested this because it seemed more legible to repeat the >>> properties by having a named structure for each property >>> rather than by repeating them all with slightly different >>> names. > >> So the only need to repeat them at all was if the two DAIs >> needed different values for some of the properties rather than >> being identical (e.g. signal polarity) or precise inversions >> (e.g. which end is master), right? > > There's more attributes that we might want to configure on the > devices than just the actual DAI link. Clocks for example.
Sure, but this binding is *simple*-audio, right. If the intent is to create some more general/all-encompassing binding structure, I'd want to think about it and review it in a different way. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
