On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 2:34 PM Daniel Palmer <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 21:14, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Does calling it "mstar,pmsleepv7" make more sense? I'm not sure what > > > to call it really. > > > > Use the name of the oldest chip you know that supports it in there, > > such as "mstar,msc313-pmsleep" if this one is specific to msc313. > > That makes sense. I think the original patch got merged to soc/arm/newsoc. > Should I recreate the series or create a new patch to do the corrections? Please send an incremental patch. > Slightly off topic but I'm working on the series for the interrupt controller > and I've just renamed it from mstar,msc313e-intc to mstar,v7intc. > I originally called it msc313e because I only knew of that chip but the > same controller is present at the same place in all of the chips so far. > I guess I should probably rename it to mstar,msc313-intc to keep with > the first chip it appeared in pattern? Yes, correct. If you have multiple chips using this controller, use the name of the oldest chip as the generic identifier and then add a more specific one for each the later chips that also use it, so the driver is able to tell the difference if it ever needs to, something like: (on msc313) compatible = "mstar,msc313-intc"; (on msc314) compatible = "mstar,msc314-intc", "mstar,msc313-intc"; (on msc315) compatible = "mstar,msc315-intc", "mstar,msc313-intc"; Arnd
