From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 14:50:41 +0200 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> Message-ID: <20140803125041.GX3952@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: