From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:09:46 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] ARM: shmobile: r8a73a4: fixup DT node naming for SDHI Message-Id: <5265279A.3030100@cogentembedded.com> List-Id: References: <87hacjdlmi.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> In-Reply-To: <87hacjdlmi.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Hello. On 10/17/2013 06:49 AM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: >>>> - sdhi0: sdhi@ee100000 { >>>> + sd0: sd@ee100000 { >>> Having to change the node names doesn't mean you need to change >>> the labels too (and PFC-related node names too). In fact, I think >>> the existing labels are better. >> My, this is tedious. >> Looking at other dts files I see a lot of entries >> of the form "mmcX: mmc@...". And I think that Morimoto-san's patches >> are in keeping with that style. >> On the other hand, I see your point that its much clearer >> to use sdhi0 as that is what the hw manuals refer to and >> it would allow differentiation with mmcif. >> So I lean towards Sergei's suggestion being a bit nicer. >> Morimoto-san, what is your feeling on this? > I don't know. > Actually, I don't have any interesting about > this kind of non-technical patches. > I don't want sending many patches in many times. > So, please show me your concretely favored style. > like this ? > sdhi0: sd@ee100000 { I thought you were asking Simon. Yes, this is the style I'd prefer. > Best regards > --- > Kuninori Morimoto WBR, Sergei