Tomasz, On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I'd vote for using "pmu-system-registers". We end up using the >> "syscon" subsystem but really we're describing pmu registers. >> >> I'd even say that you don't need to formally specify the "name" in the >> bindings (though I'm not up with all the latest device tree >> requirements). ...still you'd want to use "pmu-system-registers" in >> the DTS changes. > > Well, since the name should specify the class of device, I would say that > pmu-system-registers is too specific. If we want to change this, I'd say > we should go with system-controller. ...but the "compatible" is "samsung,exynos5250-pmu", "syscon", right? That means that the class of the device is "exynos5250-pmu", right? It is also compatible with the generic "syscon" class of devices. > As for name specification inside the binding, I agree that binding should > not require the main node to be named specifically. If we want to have > another version anyway, let's drop this. That sounds good to me. So drop the "name" part in the bindings file and then apply this discussion to patch #3 in this series (the one that touches the .dtsi files). -Doug -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |