On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 09:13:47PM +0100, Belisko Marek wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Marek, > > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 09:52:52PM +0200, Belisko Marek wrote: > >> can you please take this series (I'll post update version with > >> removing debug code). Thanks. > > > > mh. I will not pull this with "(dis)charging-calibration-data" as > > DT property name without an ACK from the DT binding maintainers. > DT maintainers ping. Apologies for the delay. I will take a look at the bidning shortly. > > > > I would feel fine with pulling this when they are prefixed with > > "ti,". Otherwise the series looks good to me. > Why it should be prefixed by "ti"? Isn't enough to have "ti" prefix for driver > compatible property? Thanks. Because if we want to add a similar generic property, the names will clash. Ideally bindings should use prefixed properties by default -- those can be replaced with generic properties as commonality becomes apparent. Mark. -- 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
