[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMgXwThYN1E=awkd8yF2aNN+QOLwHkx=UyWqGrOnMxv5jyVj5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 14:08:07 -0700
From: Wesley Terpstra <wesley@...ive.com>
To: Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>,
David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
SZ Lin <sz.lin@...a.com>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: added new pwm-sifive driver documentation
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de> wrote:
> "pwm0" sounds like a zero-indexed instance of some pwm block. If 0 is
> the version here, I'd suggest to make it "pwm-0" for example - you might
> want to take a look at the Xilinx bindings, which use a strict x.yy suffix.
That's fine. I'll change it to pwm-0.00 in the next patch series.
> Most SoCs don't have clearly versioned IP though, that's why for
> community-contributed bindings the first SoC we encounter the IP in
> usually gets the name.
In this particular case, we do have versioned IP, and we will be
contributing drivers for those which wind up in linux-capable chips.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists