Hi Stephen, On Thursday 18 July 2013 10:55:56 Stephen Warren wrote: > On 07/17/2013 04:54 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Here's a small patch set that replaces PWM polarity numerical constants > > with macros in DT. > > The series, > Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> > > I'm (very very) slightly hesitant about patch 3/4, since it's moving towards > all PWMs having to use the same specifier format, whereas specifiers are at > least potentially binding-specific, not device-type-specific. However, > consistency is good; there's no need to do something different just for the > heck of it. Equally, there's nothing actually stopping a new binding from > defining its own format rather than simply deferring to pwm.txt if it > absolutely has to, so I think this will turn out fine.
Exactly, that's why I don't think it's an issue. pwm.txt defines a common format, individual bindings are free to use it or not. Thierry, if you're fine with the patches, could you take them in your tree with Stephen's Reviewed-by, or should I report them and send you a pull request ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
