On 03/18/2013 04:27 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On 03/18/2013 01:11 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 03/18/2013 09:50 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On 03/13/2013 05:42 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
Rob,
On 03/13/2013 03:39 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
I fail to see what the hack is. The order of interrupt properties must be defined by the binding. interrupt-names is auxiliary data and must not be required by an OS.
Is that true for all foo-names properties, or only for interrupt-names? I was under the impression that foo-names was specifically invented so that the order of the entries didn't matter, and instead they could be requested by name.
I think it depends on the specific name the property is tied too. For interrupt and reg properties which have a long history and convention, the order should be defined. IIRC, this was Grant's position too. For new bindings, perhaps we can be more lenient.
OK, that makes sense for interrupts/reg. Can we decide that clock-namess are new-style and that order is not significant? I guess gpio-names too?
I guess this should be documented in whatever binding describes the core interrupts/reg-names/gpio-names/clock-names/dma-names properties.