On 15/11/2019 1:39 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:27 PM Tanwar, Rahul > <rahul.tanwar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Linus, >> >> On 13/11/2019 10:46 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:11 AM Rahul Tanwar >>> <rahul.tanwar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> Add dt bindings document for pinmux & GPIO controller driver of >>>> Intel Lightning Mountain SoC. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rahul Tanwar <rahul.tanwar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> (...) >>> >>>> +properties: >>>> + compatible: >>>> + const: intel,lgm-pinctrl >>> Just noted from another review where Rob noted that this name should >>> match the internal name in the datasheet for this hardware block. Is it >>> really called "lgm-pinctrl" inside Intel? >>> >>> intel,lightning-mountain-io and similar are perfectly fine if that is the >>> name it has in your documentation. >> Our documentation does not have any specific names for these hardware >> blocks. It names it in a very generic/standard manner like GPIO, pinmux.. >> >> To make the name explicit & self explanatory, i should probably change >> the name as you suggested i.e. intel,lightning-mountain-io. > You should also be consistent with 'lgm' vs. 'lightning-mountain' use > across bindings some of which I think have already been accepted. > Yes, other accepted drivers/bindings use 'lgm'. I will rename it to 'intel,lgm-io'to be consistent.Thanks. Regards, Rahul
