On Thursday 05 of December 2013 10:26:18 Doug Anderson wrote: > Leela Krishna, > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Monday 02 of December 2013 10:50:14 Olof Johansson wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Leela Krishna Amudala > >> <l.krishna@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > This patch adds pmusysreg node to exynos5250 and exynos5420 dtsi files to > >> > handle PMU register accesses in a centralized way using syscon driver > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Leela Krishna Amudala <l.krishna@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Tested-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/pmu.txt | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > >> > arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi | 5 +++++ > >> > arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi | 5 +++++ > >> > 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+) > >> > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/pmu.txt > >> > > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/pmu.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/pmu.txt > >> > new file mode 100644 > >> > index 0000000..307e727 > >> > --- /dev/null > >> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/pmu.txt > >> > @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ > >> > +SAMSUNG Exynos SoC series PMU Registers > >> > + > >> > +Properties: > >> > + - name : should be 'syscon'; > >> > >> It's common to use a non-abbreviated name, such as 'system-controller' > >> here. Or, given that it's referring to "pmusysreg" then maybe > >> something like "pmu-system-registers". > > > > Hmm, it's two syscons vs two system-controllers in existing device trees. > > I agree that system-controller sounds much better as a name for this class > > of devices. I don't remember why I initially suggested syscon, though. > > Possibly based on those two existing device trees using this name. > > I'd vote for using "pmu-system-registers". We end up using the > "syscon" subsystem but really we're describing pmu registers. > > I'd even say that you don't need to formally specify the "name" in the > bindings (though I'm not up with all the latest device tree > requirements). ...still you'd want to use "pmu-system-registers" in > the DTS changes. Well, since the name should specify the class of device, I would say that pmu-system-registers is too specific. If we want to change this, I'd say we should go with system-controller. As for name specification inside the binding, I agree that binding should not require the main node to be named specifically. If we want to have another version anyway, let's drop this. Best regards, Tomasz -- 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
