Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: add interrupt-names property to get interrupt resource by name

[Sylwester Nawrocki <sylvester.nawrocki@gmail.com>]

On 03/19/2013 12:05 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 03/18/2013 04:27 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> 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.
>
> OK, that makes sense for interrupts/reg. Can we decide that clock-namess
> are new-style and that order is not significant? I guess gpio-names too?
>
> I guess this should be documented in whatever binding describes the core
> interrupts/reg-names/gpio-names/clock-names/dma-names properties.

It certainly would be useful to have it documented somewhere. Not sure if
resource-names.txt would be a good place to have more information about the
order for each property.