[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180430081946.GH2484@ulmo>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:19:46 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Wesley Terpstra <wesley@...ive.com>
Cc: Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
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 02:08:07PM -0700, Wesley Terpstra wrote:
> 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.
This should match the version that you use. If you're internal
versioning uses single digits, or a single version number, then I think
there's no need to use 0.00, because that would just be confusing.
However I think it'd be good to make sure it is discernible as a version
number. Perhaps something like sifive,pwm-v0. That seems to be a fairly
common scheme.
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists