On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 03:53:22PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > Looking at your PWM/DT integration patches for linux-next, I was > wondering what is the rationale behind using the pwm-names property. > If I got it correctly, its purpose is to be able to reference > different PWMs by name, e.g. by having > > pwms = <&pwm 0 5000000>, <&pwm 1 5000000>; > pwm-names = "backlight", "flash"; > > You could get the first PWM in the driver code by calling > pwm_get(dev, "backlight") and the second through pwm_get(dev, > "flash").
Yes, that's the way it is supposed to work. > While I am ok with this way of doing, why not having the form that > is already used by the regulator and gpio frameworks, in which the > consumer is part of the property name? > > vdd-supply = <&vdd_reg>; > core-supply = <&core_reg>; > > Both regulators are then accessed using regulator_get(dev, "vdd") > and regulator_get(dev, "core"). > > Wouldn't it make more sense to follow the same scheme that has been > popularized by other frameworks? It also has the advantage that you > do not need to maintain two different properties which must be the > same size. In fact the *-names properties are rather common. They are used for the reg and interrupts properties. The pinctrl subsystem and the upcoming clock bindings also use the *-names properties. So one could just as well argue that the regulator and gpio bindings should have been using regulator-names and gpio-names respectively instead. Thierry
pgpHh70D5AWJ6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
