On 12/07/2011 05:58 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 03:13:41PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >> If a card's device was instantiated from device tree, and the device tree >> has a "user-visible-name" property, use that as the card's name. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> v2: New patch implementing new functionality >> >> Re: the binding documentation: >> * "SoC" here refers to the fact this is a binding oriented at System-on- >> chip audio complexes, rather than having to do with "ASoC"; both names >> were derived from the same root. >> * Do we need a compatible property for this "base class" binding at all? >> I think it's a good idea, even though the code doesn't actually rely >> on it. >> * Should the vendor field in the compatible property be "generic", >> "linux", or absent? I've tried to make these bindings generic and >> applicable to other OSs, so "linux," seems wrong. > > Just drop "generic," in my opinion. Rob? Grant? Segher? I think the whole string should be dropped as it is too generic. Rob > >> * Should the property "user-visible-name" have a "generic," prefix or >> similar? > > The root node uses "model" for the same purpose, to describe the machine > model with a user-visible string. Maybe just use that name here? > > > -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
