On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:29:50AM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote: > Simon Glass wrote at Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:42 AM: ... > > 1. It doesn't seem to make full use of the device tree format. For example, > > > > <TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH 5> > > > > would be better as something like > > > > drive-strength = <5>; > > > > if we could arrange it. It also reduces the need for these > > TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH defines. > > Yes I can see the argument this is more readable. > > However, it: > > * Requires a lot of string handling when parsing the device tree, since > you have to search for lots of individual properties by name. > > * Bloats the device tree quite a bit due to representing each parameter > as a separate property, with a longish name, rather than a single u32 > cell in the config property I proposed. > It bloats device tree more due to the proposal needs to represent every single muxable entity (pin for imx case) as a node to accommodate the properties like 'drive-strength' here.
-- Regards, Shawn _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss