Am 29.04.2018 um 22:51 schrieb Wesley Terpstra: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Thierry Reding > <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 03:59:56PM -0700, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: >>> +Required properties: >>> +- compatible: should be "sifive,pwm0" >> >> Why not simply "sifive,pwm"? If this is supposed to be some sort of >> version number, then it is more customary to use the name of the first >> SoC that integrates the IP. There are some exceptions, like for example >> when the IP is third-party and is integrated in a number of different >> SoCs. In such cases the IP is often properly versioned. But that doesn't >> seem to be the case here. > > It is indeed a version number. The first SoC which integrated this IP > cannot run linux. We've put a version number like this into all of our > IP blocks. Isn't an increasing number, which clearly indicates > increased functionality, better than a reference to a sequence of SoCs > whose relationships are not all that clear? "pwm0" sounds like a zero-indexed instance of some pwm block. If 0 is the version here, I'd suggest to make it "pwm-0" for example - you might want to take a look at the Xilinx bindings, which use a strict x.yy suffix. Most SoCs don't have clearly versioned IP though, that's why for community-contributed bindings the first SoC we encounter the IP in usually gets the name. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- 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
