On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:43:55AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 02:46:30PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:07:46PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > The current linux code has each pin config simply a u64. Now, an > > engineer certainly wouldn't be asked to write raw u64 values, but we > > could add some form of #define or macro syntax to dtc so that the > > symbolic names currently used in the board.c file would continue to > > work. > > I was told that the binding should not be bonded to Linux > implementation. Now I'm told to go the opposite direction? ;)
Nope; it's perfectly valid to use the current Linux implementation for inspiration, since a real implementation can be proven to actually /work/. :-) However, the binding must be documented from the perspective of how the hardware works, not from the perspective of what Linux currently wants. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
