From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: grant.likely@secretlab.ca (Grant Likely)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:22:38 +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>
 <1331800690-21518-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
 <201203150922.06379.arnd@arndb.de>
 <20120315102736.GA25371@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de>
 <20120317104751.4F00E3E0910@localhost>
 <20120318092241.GA23839@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
Message-ID: <20120318182238.3A7D43E07BF@localhost>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:22:41 +0100, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@avionic-design.de> wrote:
> * Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:27:36 +0100, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@avionic-design.de> wrote:
> > > So if we decide to explicitly allow specifying names, then we can always add
> > > a pwm-names property (or <name>-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"?

okay.

g.