On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:22:41 +0100, Thierry Reding <thierry.red...@avionic-design.de> wrote: > * Grant Likely wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:27:36 +0100, Thierry Reding > > <thierry.red...@avionic-design.de> wrote: > > > So if we decide to explicitly allow specifying names, then we can always > > > add > > > a pwm-names property (or <name>-pwm-names respectively) to use as label > > > and > > > fallback to the user OF device node name if that property is not present. > > > > After implementing both schemes (ie. interrupts+interrupt-names && > > [*-]gpios) > > I definitely prefer the fixed property name plus a separate names property. > > It is easier to use common code with that scheme, and easier to statically > > check for correctness. > > Okay. Would everyone be happy with "pwms" and "pwm-names"?
okay. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
