On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Matt Porter [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 02:11:35PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:

quoted

Am Mittwoch, den 14.11.2012, 19:15 +0000 schrieb Grant Likely:

quoted

Assuming it is appropriate to put into the device tree, I'd suggest a
different name. Instead of 'order', how about 'sram-alloc-align' (in
address bits) or 'sram-alloc-min-size' (in bytes).

A size in bytes would be the most obvious to me, although that allows to
enter values that are not a power of two.

I think the implication is that this isn't even a h/w characteristic of
SRAM and, as such, does not belong in a DT binding (for that reason I
don't mind seeing that it's been dropped in v6). It's unfortunate since
it's otherwise a very clean solution. I sure wish I had a "Software
Tree" I could pass in too. ;)

It is however in that grey area where which it isn't really a
characteristic of the hardware it has a very strong implied usage. I
do push back on things like this not because they shouldn't be done,
but rather to make sure it is properly thought through before going
ahead.

g.