On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 02:05:01PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > >>>Remaining question: any preferred name for that property? pio-mode okay? > >>>It's assuming that PIO6 capable bus supports PIO0 as well, thus no mask. > > >> I've already suggested "generic". A name "simple" also comes to my mind. > > >You've misread my question. I didn't ask about driver name, but pio-mode > >property. > > I'm OK with "pio-mode" then. Just don't think it makes much sense in the > context of this driver which has no provision for the programming the mode > timings (and if there were some provision, the *generic* platform driver > couldn't handle it anyway).
What sense it makes then?.. We're specifying bus limitations wrt PIO modes. Oh, I think you meant that bus can't be reconfigured by generic driver, that's true. But I didn't mean this as a purpose for pio-mode property (though it still could be used for that purpose by other drivers). -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] backup email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
