On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:42:51PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> We should co-ordinate better on this, if it's to become a
> >>> convention...
> >>
> >> That means we shouldn't coordinate on this, right?
> >
> > Heh. Either one is kind of ugly, I'll grant you.
> >
> > But, many SoCs do have a notion of device "number", which is relevant
> > for programming other general control registers in places. We need to
> > encode it somehow, and it would be good to have a consistent way of
> > doing it.
>
> I'm not convinced there isn't a more direct way to represent
> the relevant relationships.
>
> Either way, we don't have enough experience with this stuff
> yet to know what works well and what doesn't (at least, I
> don't, and I haven't seen any evidence that others do); so
> I'd prefer to keep this in per-device bindings for now; it
> should be there anyhow, but once we do have experience with
> it we could do some recommendation.
Well of course it will remain in the per-device bindings. But just
because these are in different per-device bindings doesn't mean we
can't *try* to use consistent property names for similar things...
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
