On 07/21/2017 10:37 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 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.
>
ok i will change order... reset-clock-controller name to match with rcc.
Best Regards
Gabriel��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
