[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1464855906.9501.1.camel@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 10:25:06 +0200
From: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@....com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, patchwork-lst@...gutronix.de,
kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: imx6: tag boards that have the HW
workaround for ERR006687
Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2016, 17:17 +0100 schrieb Russell King - ARM
Linux:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 05:29:43PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@
> > phy-reset-gpios = <&gpio3 31 0>;
> > interrupts-extended = <&gpio1 6 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <&intc 0 119 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > + fsl,err006687-war-present;
>
> war? Any reason not to spell it out, or use the more natural
> abbreviation "wa"?
>
Apparently I've read too many documents where WAR is the abbreviation
for workaround, so it felt completely natural to me. I agree that it
would make sense to just spell it out to avoid any confusion.
Regards,
Lucas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists