From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Maxime Ripard Subject: Re: MTD EEPROM support and driver integration Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:18 +0200 Message-ID: <5811519.oHVuMujf0I@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <20130706082804.GZ2959@lukather> References: <20130705201118.GM2959@lukather> <201307060033.13259.arnd@arndb.de> <20130706082804.GZ2959@lukather> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Artem Bityutskiy , oliver@schinagl.nl, Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Shawn Guo , David Woodhouse , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Saturday 06 July 2013 10:28:04 Maxime Ripard wrote: > > a) like interrupts, regs, dmas, clocks, pinctrl, reset, pwm: fixed property names > > > > regmap = <&at25 0xstart 0xlen>; > > regmap-names = "mac-address"; > > > > b) like gpio, regulator: variable property names > > > > mac-storage = <&at25 0xstart 0xlen>; > > > > It's unfortunate that we already have examples of both. They are largely > > equivalent, but the tendency is towards the first. > > I don't have a strong feeling for one against another, so whatever works > best. Both solutions will be a huge improvement anyway > > Just out of curiosity, is there any advantages besides having a fixed > property name to the first solution? I think it's mostly for consistency: trying to get most subsystems to do it the same way to make it easier for people to write dts files. A lesser point is that it simplifies the driver code if you don't have to pass a name. Arnd