Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] tegra: fdt: Add NAND controller binding and definitions

[Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>]

On 04/13/2012 04:22 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 03:21 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 04/13/2012 03:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 04/13/2012 12:43 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>> On 04/13/2012 01:29 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>> Add a NAND controller along with a bindings file for review.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass<sjg@chromium.org>
>>>
>>>>> +++ b/doc/device-tree-bindings/nand/nvidia-nand.txt
>>>
>>>>> +wp-gpio : GPIO of write-protect line, three cells in the format:
>>>>> +        phandle, parameter, flags
>>>>
>>>> nvidia,nand-wp-gpio
>>>
>>> I'm not convinced about this. For example many SDHCI bindings use just
>>> "wp-gpios" not "shdci-wp-gpios". Is there really a need to keep the
>>> property names unique across all bindings, even though a given node only
>>> relies on one binding?
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, there's a lot of bad practice in the existing trees.  But the
>> general recommendation for a while now has been to namespace properties
>> that aren't defined in standardized, device-indpendent way.  That way we
>> don't get conflicts if we want to use that name for a standard property
>> in the future, and there's less confusion if multiple people use the
>> same name in different devices with different semantics.
>
> I thought that's what the "nvidia," vendor prefix was for.

Yes, and it applies to non-standard properties too.

> Presumably standardized properties wouldn't have that?

Right.

-Scott