On Sep 9, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Rohit Vaswani wrote: > On 9/9/2013 2:25 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >> <snip> >> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 12:32:22PM -0700, Rohit Vaswani wrote: >>>>>>>>> This patch adds basic board support for APQ8074 Dragonboard >>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MSM) += msm8660-surf.dtb \ >>>>>>>>> - msm8960-cdp.dtb >>>>>>>>> + msm8960-cdp.dtb \ >>>>>>>>> + apq8074-dragonboard.dtb >>>>>>>> Please add boards alphabetically. >>>>>>> Will do. >>>>>>>>> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MVEBU) += armada-370-db.dtb \ >>>>>>>>> armada-370-mirabox.dtb \ >>>>>>>>> armada-370-rd.dtb \ >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/apq8074-dragonboard.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/apq8074-dragonboard.dts >>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>>>>> index 0000000..5b7b6a0 >>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/apq8074-dragonboard.dts >>>>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/ is getting really crowded. It's been working best if the SoC >>>>>>>> family or vendor is used as a prefix to keep things a bit more organized. In >>>>>>>> that spirit, prefixing these with msm-<foo> makes sense. Can you please do so? >>>>>>> Sure. But the board is called an APQ8074 and we wanted to keep the naming consistent with that. >>>>>> If we do this we should use qcom, not msm as the prefix. Match the device tree vendor prefix. > > Coming back to this, it would be better if the naming to be consistent with what we call our ARCH - msm and not qcom. > msm8974-dragonboard signifies quite clearly what the board is. I was saying qcom,apq8074-dragonboard or we can do the dir thing as we don't have that mean qcom/msm device trees. - k -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- 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
