On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 <[email protected]> wrote: >> It does not sound sane or >> particularly parseable to stuff it into bitfields within the second >> cell. > > I think it is somewhat sane compared to the alternatives. The > second cell encodes information about the interrupt source. Allowing > some of those bits to encode information besides level/sense > doesn't seem that difficult.
Not difficult. Ugly, unnecessary, and sounds like a premature optimization. >> Users have enough trouble parsing irq specifiers as is. It makes me >> nervous to see even more complicated irq specifiers being devised. > > Yes, they become slightly more complicated, but the complexity needs to > go somewhere. Then at the very least do it as separate cells. Carving cells into multiple fields is pretty ugly when cells are cheap. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
