linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] clk/zynq/clkc: Add 'fclk-enable' feature

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <8864256B-F8F9-4474-9B5F-416C3BB96523@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2013 03:26:20 -0500
From:	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
To:	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
Cc:	Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] clk/zynq/clkc: Add 'fclk-enable' feature


On Oct 28, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:

>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/zynq-7000.txt
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/zynq-7000.txt index
>>>> d99af878f5d7..11fdd146ec83 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/zynq-7000.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/zynq-7000.txt
>>>> 
>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,10 @@ Required properties:
>>>> Optional properties:
>>>>  - clocks : as described in the clock bindings
>>>>  - clock-names : as described in the clock bindings
>>>> 
>>>> + - fclk-enable : Bit mask to enable FCLKs in cases no proper CCF
>>> 
>>> Since it's a vendor specific property, it should include vendor
>>> prefix.
>> 
>> The whole driver is vendor specific. Should there really be another
>> prefix for that property?
> 
> Yes. If a property is introduced just for use by this particular driver 
> then it must be prepended by a vendor prefix. That's a general rule.

Most all nodes are vendor specific by definition ;).

- k

-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/