On Monday 01 December 2014 13:51:26 Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 10:26PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 01 December 2014 10:42:32 Soren Brinkmann wrote:
> > > + usb_phy0: usb-phy@0 {
> > > + compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv";
> > > + #phy-cells = <0>;
> > > + };
> > > };
> >
> > As discussed in an unrelated thread today, please drop the "@0" in the
> > node name, since the device has no 'reg' property.
>
> What is the best practice for naming such nodes then? On these boards
> it's not the case, but Zynq has two USB cores. So, there may be DTs that
> will have two phys in there. Would we just do 'usb-phy-0'?
>
>
Grant recommended naming them "phy0" and "phy1" in this case.
The recommended node name for a phy is "phy", not "usb-phy" (I didn't
notice that earlier, but it makes sense to change both), and
I would not use a dash for the number there.
Arnd
--
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
