On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:53:36AM +0100, Jonas Jensen wrote: > On 7 October 2013 17:12, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sorry I didn't notice this previously, but "moxa" isn't in > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt (despite several > > bindings using it). Could you cook up a separate patch to add an entry > > for Moxa, please? > > Yes, I'll submit a separate patch. Cheers. > > > Also, given the SoC is called "ART" it's a shame that we're calling this > > "moxa,moxart-dma" rather than "moxa,art-dma". We already have precedent > > for "moxart" in bindings though, so changing that's likely to lead to > > more problems. > > Sorry about that, I think the "moxart" contraction was suggested and > has been sticky ever since. > > It's at least a little appropriate because the physical chip text > reads "MOXA ART" (photo): > > https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-A-2FXDrObU8/UMcMc_K2vEI/AAAAAAAABwg/ldaLZ7ps1P4/w1331-h998-no/UC-7112-LX-picture4.jpg > > Currently three drivers in linux-next use the name with accompanying > device tree bindings. > Considering the amount of patches required, can we keep the name, please? Yeah, I think we have to keep it. It's not objectively wrong, and we have other contractions (e.g. vexpress) in bindings. It just looks a bit more odd than the others due to the repetition of "moxa". There's no benefit to be had changing it now. > > > Sorry for yet more pendantry, but could we instead have: > > > > - interrupts: Should contain an interrupt-specifier for the sole > > interrupt generated by the device. > > Fixed in v11. Sounds good. Cheers, Mark. -- 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
