On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:46 -0600, Tang Yuantian-B29983 wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wood Scott-B07421 > > Sent: 2014年1月24日 星期五 10:36 > > To: Tang Yuantian-B29983 > > Cc: galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Kushwaha Prabhakar-B32579 > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: corenet: Update the clock bindings > > > > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:33 -0600, Tang Yuantian-B29983 wrote: > > > > > > Instead, how about a note like this near the top of the file: > > > > > > > > > > > > All references to "1.0" and "2.0" refer to the QorIQ chassis > > > > > > version to which the chip complies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chassis Version Example Chips > > > > > > --------------- ------------- > > > > > > 1.0 p4080, p5020, p5040 > > > > > > 2.0 t4240, b4860, t1040 > > > > > > > > > > > Better, I will update. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, this binding and the associated driver really should be > > > > > > called "qoriq-clock", not "corenet-clock". This would match the > > > > > > compatible string, and it doesn't really have much to do with > > > > > > corenet (which is part of the QorIQ chassis v1 and v2, but not > > > > > > *this* part). Do you know if the chassis v3 clock interface > > > > > > will be similar enough to > > > > share a driver? > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't QorIQ include some low-end socs, like p1022, p1020? > > > > > > > > Yes, but those aren't "QorIQ Chassis 1.0" or "QorIQ Chassis 2.0". > > > > They're mpc85xx-family chips. > > > > > > > > In any case, if "qoriq" makes sense for the compatible, I don't see > > > > why it doesn't make sense for the driver. > > > > > > > So, "Corenet" is appropriate for driver. > > > If something should change, that must be compatible string. > > > > No. Corenet is a bus interconnect, not a chip family (despite abuse of > > the name in other contexts in Linux/U-Boot). And the binding with qoriq > > has already been accepted. > > > QorIQ is not the best name either since it include the low-end socs. > What the name should be? Again, those low-end chips do not implement "QorIQ Chassis 1.0" or "QorIQ Chassis 2.0". That they have "QorIQ" in their name is irrelevant. -Scott -- 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
