>>> I've avoided requiring clock nodes to have a separate sub node for >>> each output because it is more verbose and it prevents clock >>> providers from having child nodes for other purposes. Are you >>> concerned that >> >> I don't see why there should be child nodes for other purposes under >clock node. >> >>> having the <phandle>+output name pair will be difficult to manage? >> >> That's part of my concern. > >I was concerned about this too until I found precedence for doing the >exact same thing in the pci binding (and ePAPR). Mixing phandle and a >string in this way doesn't bother me anymore.
Where exactly can I get the sample code for handling this binding? - Leo _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
