From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932426Ab2CZLlX (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:41:23 -0400 Received: from eu1sys200aog106.obsmtp.com ([207.126.144.121]:38708 "EHLO eu1sys200aog106.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932390Ab2CZLlW (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:41:22 -0400 Message-ID: <4F705586.5020905@st.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:09:50 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefan Roese Cc: "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , Rajeev KUMAR , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "rtc-linux@googlegroups.com" , "a.zummo@towertech.it" , spear-devel , "viresh.linux@gmail.com" , Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc/spear: Add Device Tree probing capability References: <8747a4b3bdcfb7b3384c14ca909228e1164d0fc5.1332755275.git.viresh.kumar@st.com> <201203261332.02073.sr@denx.de> In-Reply-To: <201203261332.02073.sr@denx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/26/2012 5:02 PM, Stefan Roese wrote: >> > + rtc@fc000000 { >> > + compatible = "st,spear-rtc"; > With Rob's comments in mind, wouldn't it be better to use a more specific > compatible property? Should we stick with "st,spear600-rtc"? Or use "st- > spear300-rtc" as "oldest" SoC variant? Can name it spear600-rtc then. -- viresh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc/spear: Add Device Tree probing capability Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:09:50 +0530 Message-ID: <4F705586.5020905@st.com> References: <8747a4b3bdcfb7b3384c14ca909228e1164d0fc5.1332755275.git.viresh.kumar@st.com> <201203261332.02073.sr@denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201203261332.02073.sr-ynQEQJNshbs@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Stefan Roese Cc: "a.zummo-BfzFCNDTiLLj+vYz1yj4TQ@public.gmane.org" , Rajeev KUMAR , "rtc-linux-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , spear-devel , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "viresh.linux-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , "akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 3/26/2012 5:02 PM, Stefan Roese wrote: >> > + rtc@fc000000 { >> > + compatible = "st,spear-rtc"; > With Rob's comments in mind, wouldn't it be better to use a more specific > compatible property? Should we stick with "st,spear600-rtc"? Or use "st- > spear300-rtc" as "oldest" SoC variant? Can name it spear600-rtc then. -- viresh