On Monday 19 March 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:47:51AM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> It's not a fantastic experience when using the bindings as the arrays
> grow large, though - keeping things matched up isn't much fun especially
> if any of the elements in the array are optional.
Maybe one can use named properties in a new device node in that case,
like this:
bus {
dma: dma-controller {
#dma-cells = <1>;
};
device {
compatible = "device";
channel: dma-channel {
type = <0x1>;
name = "foo";
number = <23>;
direction = <3>;
};
dma-requests = <&dma &channel>;
};
};
In this case, the dma engine's filter function would look up
the dma-channel device node from the phandle passed in the argument
to the dma-requests property, while a simpler dma engine would
just use a single number to identify a channel there.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
