On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:04:52AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Simon, Rob, > > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > +Required properties: > >> > +- compatible: "renesas,usb-phy-r8a7790" if the device is a part of R8A7790 SoC. > >> > + "renesas,usb-phy-r8a7791" if the device is a part of R8A7791 SoC. > >> > >> As this is a new driver, I think you should switch to the recommended > >> vendor/soc/device ordering, which is also supported by checkpatch (incl. > >> wildcard matching!), i.e. "renesas,r8a7790-usb-phy" etc. > > > > A while ago we were asked to consolidate our drivers around a consistent > > scheme. At the time the <vendor>,<device>-<version> scheme, where version = > > (after talking around at ELC) It's my understanding this was a silly mistake. That is a shame as we switched around the binding for at least one driver > > SoC for most Renesas parts, was agreed to be acceptable and we have > > (hopefully) consistently been using that ever since. > > We did for everything except for clock drivers, sound, and thermal. > > > So unless there has been a policy change I would prefer to keep using this > > scheme (i.e. leave the bindings above as-is). And update checkpatch if that > > is appropriate. > > Rob, can we have the official policy documented in > Documentation/devicetree/bindings? Of course if there is a policy I'm have no objections to following it for new drivers. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
