On 07/20, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hi Gabriel,
>
> On 07/20/2017 11:31 AM, Gabriel FERNANDEZ wrote:
> > Hi Vladimir,
> >
> >
> > On 07/19/2017 11:20 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> >> Hello Gabriel,
> >>
> >> On 07/19/2017 05:25 PM, gabriel.fernandez@xxxxxx wrote:
> >>> From: Gabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernandez@xxxxxx>
> >>> +
> >>> + rcc: rcc@58024400 {
> >> 'rcc' as a generic device node name is awkward.
> >>
> >> I believe the main function of the device is clock controller (unlikely
> >> a generic reset controller can be converted into a clock controller),
> >> the locations of the document and device driver also indicate that
> >> primarily it is a clock controller, so I suggest to replace device node
> >> name with 'clock-controller' like below:
> > I prefer to keep rcc node name, to be coherent with the other ST
> > platforms (STM32F4/F7)
>
> the thing is, a device node name is expected to comply with ePAPR or
> the devicetree specification, which says
>
> The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting
> the function of the device and not its precise programming model.
>
> If devicetree and CCF maintainers are fine with 'rcc', I won't object,
> my role is just to emphasize the found issue and recommend to use another
> and more common name 'clock-controller', it is a simple and fortunately
> backward compatible change to other ST platforms as well.
Yes. It should be generic so clock-controller or
clock-reset-controller is appropriate here.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
