From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752097AbcDCDDd (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:03:33 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f66.google.com ([209.85.220.66]:36203 "EHLO mail-pa0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750819AbcDCDDb (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:03:31 -0400 Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:56:33 +0900 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Javier Martinez Canillas Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] ARM: dts: exynos: Fix DTC unit name warnings in Exynos5250 Message-ID: <20160403025633.GA3789@kozik-lap> References: <1459493874-2366-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <1459493874-2366-6-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <56FEAE29.6010405@osg.samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56FEAE29.6010405@osg.samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 01:21:45PM -0400, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > > > - usb@12000000 { > > + usb_dwc3 { > > compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-dwusb3"; > > clocks = <&clock CLK_USB3>; > > clock-names = "usbdrd30"; > > The ePAPR document says that "The name of a node should be somewhat generic, > reflecting the function of the device and not its precise programming model" > > So I wonder if this shouldn't be instead: > > usb_dwc3: usb { There are already nodes with 'usb' name: ehci: usb@12110000 { compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-ehci"; ... } ohci: usb@12120000 { compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-ohci"; } Having nodes with the same name but some with address some not, should work (none should be overridden)... but looks a little bit weird. Anyway I am fine with both. > Although it seems that not all DT bindings follow this convention so probably > the name in your patch is correct. > > Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas Thanks for review and comments. I already spotted the 'memory' node issue so I won't be replying to you with acknowledging comments. :) BR, Krzysztof From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: k.kozlowski@samsung.com (Krzysztof Kozlowski) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:56:33 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 06/11] ARM: dts: exynos: Fix DTC unit name warnings in Exynos5250 In-Reply-To: <56FEAE29.6010405@osg.samsung.com> References: <1459493874-2366-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <1459493874-2366-6-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <56FEAE29.6010405@osg.samsung.com> Message-ID: <20160403025633.GA3789@kozik-lap> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 01:21:45PM -0400, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > > > - usb at 12000000 { > > + usb_dwc3 { > > compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-dwusb3"; > > clocks = <&clock CLK_USB3>; > > clock-names = "usbdrd30"; > > The ePAPR document says that "The name of a node should be somewhat generic, > reflecting the function of the device and not its precise programming model" > > So I wonder if this shouldn't be instead: > > usb_dwc3: usb { There are already nodes with 'usb' name: ehci: usb at 12110000 { compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-ehci"; ... } ohci: usb at 12120000 { compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-ohci"; } Having nodes with the same name but some with address some not, should work (none should be overridden)... but looks a little bit weird. Anyway I am fine with both. > Although it seems that not all DT bindings follow this convention so probably > the name in your patch is correct. > > Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas Thanks for review and comments. I already spotted the 'memory' node issue so I won't be replying to you with acknowledging comments. :) BR, Krzysztof