[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3866ce69-b7d0-5eb5-e0aa-874d150cd47a@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:22:38 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu <srivasam@...eaurora.org>,
agross@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
robh+dt@...nel.org, plai@...eaurora.org, bgoswami@...eaurora.org,
perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com, rohitkr@...eaurora.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
V Sujith Kumar Reddy <vsujithk@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] Asoc:qcom:lpass-cpu:Update dts property read API
On 22/09/2020 12:08, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On 18/09/2020 07:04, Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu wrote:
>>> - res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>>> + res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "lpass-lpaif");
>> Index is always preferred over name w.r.t device tree bindings, so lets
>> stick with that for now!
> It is? That's not usually the case...
>
>> Unless you have any strong reason to lookup resource by name?
> Looking things up by name tends to make the DT easier to read (since
> things are named).
I agree with you on this and I see the point, but Rob had a very
different opinion about the reg-names bindings to start with.
This topic been discussed in the past with Rob in many instances ex:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/CAL_Jsq+MMunmVWqeW9v2RyzsMKP+=kMzeTHNMG4JDHM7Fy0HBg@mail.gmail.com/
According to him, reg-names seems to be highly discouraged as it came
along for the OMAP folks and was related to the hwmods stuff.
--srini
Powered by blists - more mailing lists