[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YMmuz0EVjfEi6MJj@dell>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:57:03 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Min Li <min.li.xe@...esas.com>
Cc: "sameo@...ux.intel.com" <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mfd v2] mfd: Add Renesas Synchronization Management Unit
(SMU) support
On Tue, 15 Jun 2021, Min Li wrote:
> >
> > > +static struct mfd_cell rsmu_cm_devs[] = {
> > > + [RSMU_PHC] = {
> > > + .name = "idtcm-phc",
> >
> > Can't you have a nicer name?
> >
> Hi Lee
>
> I wonder which part of the name that you don't like? PHC stands from PTP Hardware Clock.
> I was following the name convention like tps65912-regulator.
> Do you accept "8a3400-phc"?
I think you're trying to put too much information into the device
name.
Currently it's:
idt <company name> cm <platform> - phc <exact device type>
Where usually we have, taking your example:
tps65912 <chip> - regulator <subsystem>
So assuming the PTP HW Clock is just a clock it should be:
8a3400 <chip> - clock <subsystem>
It's difficult to say without seeing the associated child device(s).
When do you propose to upstream those? Maybe they should be part of
this initial set. I think that would help a lot.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists