From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Add generic device tree DMA helpers Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:22:38 +0000 Message-ID: <20120318182238.3A7D43E07BF@localhost> 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> Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120318092241.GA23839@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thierry Reding Cc: Arnd Bergmann , 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 List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:22:41 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > * 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"? okay. g.