Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] misc: sram: add support for configurableallocation order

[Grant Likely]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Matt Porter <mporter@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 02:11:35PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, den 14.11.2012, 19:15 +0000 schrieb Grant Likely:
>> > 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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/