From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: t.figa@samsung.com (Tomasz Figa)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:26:01 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v5 1/3] clk: samsung: Add clock driver for s5pc110/s5pv210
In-Reply-To: <52419A6E.9020203@samsung.com>
References: <1380027009-2239-1-git-send-email-m.krawczuk@partner.samsung.com>
 <1380027009-2239-2-git-send-email-m.krawczuk@partner.samsung.com>
 <52419A6E.9020203@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <2095838.ED3sWFjloW@amdc1227>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tuesday 24 of September 2013 15:58:06 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 24/09/13 14:50, Mateusz Krawczuk wrote:
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/samsung,s5pv210-clock.txt
> > @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
> > +* Samsung S5PC110/S5PV210 Clock Controller
> > +
> > +The S5PV210 clock controller generates and supplies clock to various controllers
> > +within the SoC. The clock binding described here is applicable to all SoCs in
> > +the S5PC110/S5PV210 family.
> > +
> > +Required Properties:
> > +
> > +- compatible: should be "samsung,s5pv210-clock".
> 
> I have nothing against this compatible value, but wouldn't it be more
> accurate to use, e.g. "samsung,s5pv210-cmu" - for Clock Management Unit,
> as this IP block is also referred to in the documentation ?
> 
> May just be me, but "samsung,s5pv210-clock" sounds like just one
> specific clock type.

In the user's manual I have, this IP is referred to either as "CMU", as
you suggested, or simply as "clock controller". "CMU" is not very
meaningfull, so "samsung,s5pv210-clock-controller" would be the best here
I guess, but for consistency with other Samsung's clock bindings, I'd
suggest leaving this as is in the patch.

Best regards,
Tomasz