From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:38:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH V2 3/3] tegra: add pwm backlight device tree nodes Message-Id: <500DB637.8000502@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: References: <1341814105-20690-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <1341814105-20690-4-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <4FFEA2D4.9050308@nvidia.com> <4FFFB2DC.3040605@nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: <4FFFB2DC.3040605@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Alex Courbot Cc: Simon Glass , Thierry Reding , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" On 07/12/2012 11:32 PM, Alex Courbot wrote: > On 07/12/2012 11:27 PM, Simon Glass wrote ... >> From my understanding mixing strings and numbers in a property is >> frowned on though. > > But doesn't it make sense in the current case? The power sequence is > basically a program that is run by an interpreter. From this > perspective, it makes more sense to me to have it as a binary field > rather than a hierarchy of nodes and properties that will be harder to > parse and will make error detection more complicated. I don't really see > any practical benefit from turning the steps into sub-nodes, but then > again I am not so familiar with the DT. Mixing strings and integers in a property isn't "allowed" (by convention of DT bindings reviewers - as you noticed, dtc will happily compile it); there are practical issues with attempting to do so, such as causing the integer values to be unaligned, and thus causing the current integer parsing code to fail, etc.