From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 14:26:30 +0200 Subject: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers In-Reply-To: References: <1368332581-94691-1-git-send-email-dt.tangr@gmail.com> <201305192148.46398.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <4603632.xLpXUpmrfP@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Monday 20 May 2013 21:19:33 Daniel Tang wrote: > On 20/05/2013, at 5:48 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Sunday 19 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: > >> If the vendors for the on-SOC components are unknown, should we just > >> leave the compatible strings as is (i.e. "nspire-XXX")? > > > > In that case, I would use the name of the company that made the SoC. > > I believe someone mentioned it was made by LSI logic. > > Yep, that's right. So "lsi,nspire-XXX" should be fine? I wouldn't use that combination, since lsi did not make the nspire. For anything on the LSI chip, "lsi,zevio-XXX" would be correct, or maybe "lsi,zevio1020-XXX" for something specific to a particular SoC variant. For off-SoC parts, "ti,nspire-XXX" would be right, or "ti,nspire-cx-XXX" if you care about the model. Arnd