From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: grant.likely@secretlab.ca (Grant Likely) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:14:01 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 6/7] MMC: mmci: Enable Device Tree support for ux500 variants In-Reply-To: <4F7DA1DE.2030203@linaro.org> References: <1333619748-16126-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1333619748-16126-7-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20120405123642.GG24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4F7DA1DE.2030203@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20120406041401.28A993E0BC4@localhost> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:45:02 +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On 05/04/12 13:36, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 10:55:47AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > >> + of_property_read_u32(np, "clock-frequency",&pdata->f_max); > >> + if (!pdata->f_max) > >> + pr_warn("%s has no 'clock-frequency' property\n", np->full_name); > > > > To be anal about this (which is what we should be about DT bindings) > > this is not a 'clock frequency' but a maximum clock frequency for the > > bus. Or to put it another way, a clock frequency limit. > > > > A 'clock-frequency' property suggests (at least to me) that it's > > specifying the rate of the MCLK signal, which is not what it's doing. > > Sounds sensible. > > I initially had it as 'f-max', but was told to change it to > 'clock-frequency'. I'm happy to take other suggestions however. Yes, "clock-frequency" already has established usage as an exact clock specification. If it is a maximum as you say then something like "max-frequency" makes more sense. Someone was working on a common MMC DT binding. Really all of the MMC drivers should use the same binding for the common bits. g.