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. Rob _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
