Am 30.04.2018 um 10:19 schrieb Thierry Reding: > 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. Yes. My point was not to adopt another vendor's versioning scheme but to adopt _some_ consistent scheme and document it, e.g., in a sifive.txt similar to xilinx.txt: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/xilinx.txt It should be made clear what in the compatible string the version is (thus my proposal of using a dash as separator), and there you may want to document how to map between IP/documentation and compatibles for any new bindings. 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
