[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27686f2a-a517-4923-ba6d-58233cf149af@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:34:36 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com
Cc: bhelgaas@...gle.com, lpieralisi@...nel.org, kw@...ux.com,
robh@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dt-bindings: PCI: altera: Convert to YAML
On 16/04/2024 16:32, matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>>
>> Why Hip is the first? Old binding suggested it to be the last entry. It
>> would also make binding easier, as you describe reg and reg-names in
>> top-level and just limit them with min/maxItems.
>>
>> Does anything depend on different order (Hip as first)?
>
> I don't think the order really matters. So Hip could go last, and it makes
The order matters, it is the ABI.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists