From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: emilio@elopez.com.ar (=?UTF-8?B?RW1pbGlvIEzDs3Bleg==?=) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 19:15:00 -0300 Subject: [PATCH 7/9] ARM: sunxi: dt: Add PLL2 support In-Reply-To: References: <1406842092-25207-1-git-send-email-emilio@elopez.com.ar> <1406842092-25207-8-git-send-email-emilio@elopez.com.ar> <20140803125041.GX3952@lukather> Message-ID: <53DEB464.7050604@elopez.com.ar> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, El 03/08/14 a las 12:55, Chen-Yu Tsai escibi?: > On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Maxime Ripard > wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 05:46:09PM -0400, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote: >>> Would it be better to name this "allwinner,sun4i-a10-pll2-clk" instead >>> of "allwinner,sun4i-a10-b-pll2-clk"? By encoding the b in it everyone >>> is going to wonder what to do on the 'c' revision which is the most >>> common revision. >> >> Not really, the way we works usually is that the compatible is the one >> from the first SoC that implemented that IP. If the rev C has the same >> IP than rev B, then we're using the rev B compatible. >> >>> >>> The revision based rename would then be from >>> "allwinner,sun4i-a10-pll2-clk" to "allwinner,sun4i-a10-a-pll2-clk". >> >> Though, I'd agree with you. We should have a single compatible in the >> DT, a generic one, that would trigger the auto-detection, and might >> change it to the rev A one, but the rev B doesn't make much sense. > > I agree. The rev B would make people reading the DT wonder what happened > to rev A. Would you like to see "allwinner,sun4i-a10-pll2-clk" on the DT then? Should we document it as a magic property triggering an autodetect on the clock binding document? Cheers! Emilio