On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 04:03:51AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Thursday, October 02, 2014 04:36:54 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 02:46:30PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Thursday 02 October 2014 15:15:08 Mika Westerberg wrote:

[cut]

quoted

Putting everything to a single package results this:

		Package () { "pwms", Package () {"led-red", ^PWM0, 0, 10, "led-green", ^PWM0, 1, 10 }}

But I think the below looks better:

I agree.

quoted

		Package () { "pwms", Package () {^PWM0, 0, 10, ^PWM0, 1, 10 }}
		Package () { "pwm-names", Package () {"led-red", "led-green"}}

and it is trivial to match with the corresponding DT fragment.

quoted

	}

vs.

	pwm-slave {
		pwms = <&pwm0 0 10>, <&pwm1 1 20>;
		pwm-names = "led-red", "led-green";
	};

I don't have strong feelings which way it should be. The current
implementation limits references so that you can have only integer
arguments, like {ref0, int, int, ref1, int} but if people think it is
better to allow strings there as well, it can be changed.

I would like to get comments from Darren and Rafael about this, though.

In my opinion there needs to be a "canonical" representation of the
binding that people always can expect to work.  It seems reasonable to
use the one exactly matching the DT representation for that.

In addition to that we can add other representations that the code will
also parse correctly as alternatives.  In the future.

OK, so if no objections and Arnd promised not to complain too loudly, I
would like to keep this as is for now.