linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: intel: Add for new SoC

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 15 Nov 2019 14:01:38 +0800
From:   "Tanwar, Rahul" <rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andriy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
        qi-ming.wu@...el.com, yixin zhu <yixin.zhu@...ux.intel.com>,
        cheol.yong.kim@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: intel: Add for new SoC



On 15/11/2019 1:39 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:27 PM Tanwar, Rahul
> <rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Linus,
>>
>> On 13/11/2019 10:46 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:11 AM Rahul Tanwar
>>> <rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Add dt bindings document for pinmux & GPIO controller driver of
>>>> Intel Lightning Mountain SoC.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rahul Tanwar <rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com>
>>> (...)
>>>
>>>> +properties:
>>>> +  compatible:
>>>> +    const: intel,lgm-pinctrl
>>> Just noted from another review where Rob noted that this name should
>>> match the internal name in the datasheet for this hardware block. Is it
>>> really called "lgm-pinctrl" inside Intel?
>>>
>>> intel,lightning-mountain-io and similar are perfectly fine if that is the
>>> name it has in your documentation.
>> Our documentation does not have any specific names for these hardware
>> blocks. It names it in a very generic/standard manner like GPIO, pinmux..
>>
>> To make the name explicit & self explanatory, i should probably change
>> the name as you suggested i.e. intel,lightning-mountain-io.
> You should also be consistent with 'lgm' vs. 'lightning-mountain' use
> across bindings some of which I think have already been accepted.
>

Yes, other accepted drivers/bindings use 'lgm'. I will rename it to
'intel,lgm-io'to be consistent.Thanks.

Regards,
Rahul