From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752242AbeD3ITw (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2018 04:19:52 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f173.google.com ([209.85.128.173]:39968 "EHLO mail-wr0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751618AbeD3ITu (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2018 04:19:50 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZpACW5QLUTpbpEGJi4Fff5nyMpsb+PBVQkiHTtRWzpsZrpr7QxN3+iSVqHFJ+E2sDmN/EZrFw== Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:19:46 +0200 From: Thierry Reding To: Wesley Terpstra Cc: Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Noralf =?utf-8?Q?Tr=C3=B8nnes?= , David Lechner , Alexandre Belloni , SZ Lin , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: added new pwm-sifive driver documentation Message-ID: <20180430081946.GH2484@ulmo> References: <1524869998-2805-1-git-send-email-wesley@sifive.com> <1524869998-2805-2-git-send-email-wesley@sifive.com> <20180429055417.GA10221@mithrandir> <60772240-3c75-7814-9237-d60916a8ceca@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lrvsYIebpInmECXG" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --lrvsYIebpInmECXG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 02:08:07PM -0700, Wesley Terpstra wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Andreas F=C3=A4rber w= rote: > > "pwm0" sounds like a zero-indexed instance of some pwm block. If 0 is > > the version here, I'd suggest to make it "pwm-0" for example - you might > > want to take a look at the Xilinx bindings, which use a strict x.yy suf= fix. >=20 > That's fine. I'll change it to pwm-0.00 in the next patch series. This should match the version that you use. If you're internal versioning uses single digits, or a single version number, then I think there's no need to use 0.00, because that would just be confusing. However I think it'd be good to make sure it is discernible as a version number. Perhaps something like sifive,pwm-v0. That seems to be a fairly common scheme. Thierry --lrvsYIebpInmECXG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEiOrDCAFJzPfAjcif3SOs138+s6EFAlrm0aAACgkQ3SOs138+ s6ELZw/+Mci8WW7pIpcPzvO9Q7xNbU4NmKkMr2nPSVEEkPbnUsbeM/V7UhDYbXue Qp21a6rkiWvIskrKrtWFheerkOgp7UD6YpDnZc3ycEwdVtMs/LcYMtJEuQ5v6Aa5 VBHXy5VDJHGbJt0uA6SXLq4hP8xSYCfSwEk7bmJSLdd/M0NnyJp2+rVHuQKybGK4 ckd6NnKKp0Z0qgchUePVWspkRAZi6uNXme8X3eNIZc+YbPj3wocIMoW1St7vv1uO ckQl/Vrp3EtoK7fnMARbGPYjcHvgRN5IkJlznvPQS/0LWo4JG+Y+OxgeKRd1PvoN hZBTSeTwY4dNtE/VoEXQjKp/bd0DTcrLp9OL71CjQMTGOFMq4LyAurJUxHrs7BYY UVuEeJfLMWjW1f6/l74Efo5HC3lgjOaSQuY1Ki/auO3JVHV0O7NhLFXA1lIbyjOX NbLxdy4IjOMu9KC0Bm2hz4hjjk2WJjYATCrd+Zh85xnIKyb1+nwI+E3h5Wtyu/t7 P25KiF0atkTW83MdBeER9tsd0e9wEqaiNszxMrTI4UWJwHowV/yCGcrMdR03TTJ6 EtcSO1U/OSxaCU4QPQMmddi6A0Kh91+u0mhITDNuQ5rdWM/4UJLo5t3CVzLkmmpb 0atNW6XLrZcRzjKBYqhncuvhzk6+x77o0sUQlQ4Ke2pE+2K3fFc= =BA9b -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lrvsYIebpInmECXG--