On 08/14/2013 03:09 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> On 07/23/2013 03:19 AM, Punit Agrawal wrote: >>> The CCI PMU can profile bus transactions at the master and slave >>> interfaces of the CCI. The PMU can be used to observe an aggregated view >>> of the bus traffic between the various components connected to the CCI. >>> >>> Extend the existing CCI driver to support the PMU by registering a perf >>> backend for it. >>> >>> Document the device tree binding to describe the CCI PMU. >> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cci.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cci.txt >> >>> + - CCI PMU node >>> + >>> + Node name must be "pmu". >> >> I don't think the binding should require the node to have a particular >> name; node names shouldn't be interpret/used/relied-upon by drivers. > > While I agree with that, we should be aiming for some convention and consistency with node names. Sure. Should there be a Documentation/devictree/bindings/node-names that lists common node names for people to use? Either way though, I still think this is an aspect of authoring the *.dts file, not an aspect of the DT binding? After all, what if there were more than one CCI so they needed to be named pmu@0, pmu@1, etc.? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
