[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151021121409.GA8232@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:14:09 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Documentation: tps65086: Add DT bindings for the
TPS65086 PMIC
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:18:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:46:33AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> > It is however the normal way we write compatible strings - the class
> > information would normaly go in the node name (ie, i2c@...0c000 or
> > whatever).
> I didn't say it hasn't been done before, just that I didn't like it
> for the aforementioned reasons. I can also find 1000's of compatible
> strings which do append "-<device_type>", so it's not exactly an
> unheard of practice.
It's a pretty substantial change in the way we make compatible strings
that we probably want to discuss more widely if we want to adopt it -
we've not been using that idiom and it's pretty surprising. I'm not
really sure it help much and we do already have the pre-@ noise words
for this purpose (as well as comments in the DT).
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists