From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Add generic device tree DMA helpers Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:10:14 +0000 Message-ID: <201203181510.14428.arnd@arndb.de> References: <4F22DEF2.5000807@ti.com> <20120317104751.4F00E3E0910@localhost> <20120318092241.GA23839@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:63651 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753106Ab2CRPKa (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:10:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120318092241.GA23839@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Thierry Reding Cc: Grant Likely , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Nicolas Ferre , rob.herring@calxeda.com, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Stephen Warren , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Benoit Cousson , Russell King On Sunday 18 March 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > Not enough information to check signature validity. Show Details > * Grant Likely wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:27:36 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > So if we decide to explicitly allow specifying names, then we can always add > > > a pwm-names property (or -pwm-names respectively) to use as label and > > > fallback to the user OF device node name if that property is not present. > > > > After implementing both schemes (ie. interrupts+interrupt-names && [*-]gpios) > > I definitely prefer the fixed property name plus a separate names property. > > It is easier to use common code with that scheme, and easier to statically > > check for correctness. > > Okay. Would everyone be happy with "pwms" and "pwm-names"? Sounds good. I would have suggested "pwm", but the plural also works since that is used for "interrupts", too. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:10:14 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] of: Add generic device tree DMA helpers In-Reply-To: <20120318092241.GA23839@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> References: <4F22DEF2.5000807@ti.com> <20120317104751.4F00E3E0910@localhost> <20120318092241.GA23839@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Message-ID: <201203181510.14428.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sunday 18 March 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > Not enough information to check signature validity. Show Details > * Grant Likely wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:27:36 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > So if we decide to explicitly allow specifying names, then we can always add > > > a pwm-names property (or -pwm-names respectively) to use as label and > > > fallback to the user OF device node name if that property is not present. > > > > After implementing both schemes (ie. interrupts+interrupt-names && [*-]gpios) > > I definitely prefer the fixed property name plus a separate names property. > > It is easier to use common code with that scheme, and easier to statically > > check for correctness. > > Okay. Would everyone be happy with "pwms" and "pwm-names"? Sounds good. I would have suggested "pwm", but the plural also works since that is used for "interrupts", too. Arnd