From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751388AbaK0QdI (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:33:08 -0500 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:41057 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750848AbaK0QdF (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:33:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:30:59 +0000 From: Mark Brown To: Lee Jones Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@stlinux.com, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20141127163059.GZ7712@sirena.org.uk> References: <1417088636-11994-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1417088636-11994-3-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20141127130053.GW7712@sirena.org.uk> <20141127145542.GH4628@x1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dfAulW8sdm/Y0CsS" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141127145542.GH4628@x1> X-Cookie: Celebrity voices impersonated. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.175.94.161 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] spi: st: Provide Device Tree binding documentation X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --dfAulW8sdm/Y0CsS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:55:42PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Mark Brown wrote: > > What do the two different compatible strings mean (for example, should > > ssc4 be used for version 4 and higher or is it just a quirk for that > > version)? > This appears to be historical. There aren't any functional > differences i.e. we don't match on them. I believe the former is a > more informal, generic name and the latter is the official name of the > IP block. The I2C component already upstreamed has the same naming > conventions by the looks of it. Probably best to say something or retire one then. --dfAulW8sdm/Y0CsS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUd1HCAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQOWoH/1hYO3qV5JbFVeE0xphBa4Td 1xry2lXjk5lelhXBiNcpkEq2hLJVXQntjaLu5L2syKi9TvD9JNT6HycJvVv33vU3 jlkcY7A6hM+ol8ExKBH0rcUQS/mWFPqj19+WtKKR01NlP08qaN5KHJmxcAseGxNV J2Y9t4usSRw2XTtxOXN/R4KcwZqZSFdLA+NPFJv92B9UVnzEnlKCLDxdB8ETSfCS C7MBYmmYyDvbF1waozT0bLBV2qMLj8L+pA3CGWBW8zZQANL1FNHsC1ciNx3Qa2y7 Di1Mgs1UexxS+zl7OgWGyPc3MQorck6DOPhJkBwct7HliP9egEUCvw1yVsY7dk0= =mAJ2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dfAulW8sdm/Y0CsS-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] spi: st: Provide Device Tree binding documentation Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:30:59 +0000 Message-ID: <20141127163059.GZ7712@sirena.org.uk> References: <1417088636-11994-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1417088636-11994-3-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20141127130053.GW7712@sirena.org.uk> <20141127145542.GH4628@x1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dfAulW8sdm/Y0CsS" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141127145542.GH4628@x1> Sender: linux-spi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Lee Jones Cc: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-F5mvAk5X5gdBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, linux-spi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --dfAulW8sdm/Y0CsS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:55:42PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Mark Brown wrote: > > What do the two different compatible strings mean (for example, should > > ssc4 be used for version 4 and higher or is it just a quirk for that > > version)? > This appears to be historical. There aren't any functional > differences i.e. we don't match on them. I believe the former is a > more informal, generic name and the latter is the official name of the > IP block. The I2C component already upstreamed has the same naming > conventions by the looks of it. Probably best to say something or retire one then. --dfAulW8sdm/Y0CsS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUd1HCAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQOWoH/1hYO3qV5JbFVeE0xphBa4Td 1xry2lXjk5lelhXBiNcpkEq2hLJVXQntjaLu5L2syKi9TvD9JNT6HycJvVv33vU3 jlkcY7A6hM+ol8ExKBH0rcUQS/mWFPqj19+WtKKR01NlP08qaN5KHJmxcAseGxNV J2Y9t4usSRw2XTtxOXN/R4KcwZqZSFdLA+NPFJv92B9UVnzEnlKCLDxdB8ETSfCS C7MBYmmYyDvbF1waozT0bLBV2qMLj8L+pA3CGWBW8zZQANL1FNHsC1ciNx3Qa2y7 Di1Mgs1UexxS+zl7OgWGyPc3MQorck6DOPhJkBwct7HliP9egEUCvw1yVsY7dk0= =mAJ2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dfAulW8sdm/Y0CsS-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:30:59 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] spi: st: Provide Device Tree binding documentation In-Reply-To: <20141127145542.GH4628@x1> References: <1417088636-11994-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1417088636-11994-3-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20141127130053.GW7712@sirena.org.uk> <20141127145542.GH4628@x1> Message-ID: <20141127163059.GZ7712@sirena.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:55:42PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Mark Brown wrote: > > What do the two different compatible strings mean (for example, should > > ssc4 be used for version 4 and higher or is it just a quirk for that > > version)? > This appears to be historical. There aren't any functional > differences i.e. we don't match on them. I believe the former is a > more informal, generic name and the latter is the official name of the > IP block. The I2C component already upstreamed has the same naming > conventions by the looks of it. Probably best to say something or retire one then. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: