On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Andrew Bresticker >>> <abrestic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Add the vendor prefix "mti" for MIPS Technologies, Inc. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> New for v2. >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt >>>> index ac7269f..efa5a5b 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt >>>> @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ microchip Microchip Technology Inc. >>>> mosaixtech Mosaix Technologies, Inc. >>>> moxa Moxa >>>> mpl MPL AG >>>> +mti MIPS Technologies, Inc. >>> >>> Why not mips as that is more common and the stock ticker. >> >> "mti" is already in use, see >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/cpu_irq.txt, >> arch/mips/mti-sead3/sead3.dts, and arch/mips/ralink/dts/*.dtsi. > > Isn’t mips already used as well: Yes, however it is only used for CPUs, it does not appear in any binding document, and no code actually matches against it.
