On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 01:26:02PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 04/15/2013 10:13 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
[...] > > + - enable-method > > + Usage: required on ARM 64-bit systems, optional on ARM 32-bit > > + systems If we define no meaningful enumerations for 32-bit systems (for example, the spin-table boot method doesn't exist), then arguably this property should be prohibited for 32-bit systems in this version of the binding. The binding should be extended later when we have enable methods to add? (enable-method = "psci" is one plausible addition) > > + Value type: <string> > > + Definition: On ARM 64-bit systems must be "spin-table" [1]. > > Can that be an integer instead? with dtc+cpp support, that shouldn't > hurt the eyes too much any more. That doesn't feel very DT-like, and it makes the standalone FDT excessively cryptic without the headers. Does it really matter that much? DT parsing should not be on any performance-critical path. Mostly, DT convention seems to be to use legible string names for enumerations like this. Anything which tends to encrypt the DT content starts us on a slippery slope IMHO. Converting the DT back to a vaguely human-readable form becomes impossible without the headers. Cheers ---Dave _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
