Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] ACPI: Document ACPI device specific properties

Mika Westerberg
2014-10-03T08:12:33Z

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 04:03:51AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, October 02, 2014 04:36:54 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 02:46:30PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thursday 02 October 2014 15:15:08 Mika Westerberg wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> >
> > Putting everything to a single package results this:
> >
> > Package () { "pwms", Package () {"led-red", ^PWM0, 0, 10, "led-green", ^PWM0, 1, 10 }}
> >
> > But I think the below looks better:
>
> I agree.
>
> > Package () { "pwms", Package () {^PWM0, 0, 10, ^PWM0, 1, 10 }}
> > Package () { "pwm-names", Package () {"led-red", "led-green"}}
> >
> > and it is trivial to match with the corresponding DT fragment.
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > vs.
> > >
> > > pwm-slave {
> > > pwms = <&pwm0 0 10>, <&pwm1 1 20>;
> > > pwm-names = "led-red", "led-green";
> > > };
> > >
> >
> > I don't have strong feelings which way it should be. The current
> > implementation limits references so that you can have only integer
> > arguments, like {ref0, int, int, ref1, int} but if people think it is
> > better to allow strings there as well, it can be changed.
> >
> > I would like to get comments from Darren and Rafael about this, though.
>
> In my opinion there needs to be a "canonical" representation of the
> binding that people always can expect to work. It seems reasonable to
> use the one exactly matching the DT representation for that.
>
> In addition to that we can add other representations that the code will
> also parse correctly as alternatives. In the future.

OK, so if no objections and Arnd promised not to complain too loudly, I
would like to keep this as is for now.