Subject: [PATCH] of: Add generic device tree DMA helpers

From: [email-masked] (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:10:14 +0000

On Sunday 18 March 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
> Not enough information to check signature validity.  Show Details
>   * Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:27:36 +0100, Thierry Reding <[email-masked]> 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"?

Sounds good. I would have suggested "pwm", but the plural also works since
that is used for "interrupts", too.

	Arnd