On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 02:08:07PM -0700, Wesley Terpstra wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > "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. > > That's fine. I'll change it to pwm-0.00 in the next patch series. This should match the version that you use. If you're internal versioning uses single digits, or a single version number, then I think there's no need to use 0.00, because that would just be confusing. However I think it'd be good to make sure it is discernible as a version number. Perhaps something like sifive,pwm-v0. That seems to be a fairly common scheme. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
