Re: [PATCH V2 0/5] W1: Support onewire master on i.MX53

[Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:26:56PM +0000, Martin Fuzzey wrote:
> On 22/01/13 15:09, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 09:27:12AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 03:57:49PM +0100, Martin Fuzzey wrote:
> >>> W1: Support onewire master on i.MX53
> >>> 	* Add device tree and pinctrl support to the MXC master driver
> >>> 	* Convert to use devm_
> >>> 	* Add i.MX53 clocks
> >>> 	* Add i.MX53 device tree entries
> >>>
> >>> Changes since V1
> >>> * Applied comments from Sascha Hauer:
> >>> 	* Move patch converting driver to devm_ before the one adding devm_ based pinctrl
> >>> 	* Fix existing unbalanced clk_prepare_enable/clk_disable_unprepare
> >>> 	in probe error path
> >>>
> >>> * Place DT patch last since it includes pinctrls for driver.
> >> This looks good now.
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
> >>
> >> You might have to send this again in two series, one for the w1
> >> maintainer and one for arm-soc. Both series should be sufficiently
> >> orthogonal.
> >>
> > Evgeniy has already ACK-ed the v1 series, so maybe he does not see any
> > problem with the whole series going through one tree.  In that case,
> > we may just have it go via arm-soc tree?  Otherwise, please let us
> > know, Evgeniy.
> >
> > Shawn
> >
> There was also the question raised by Mark Rutland on the DT compatible
> string.
> Currently this is "fsl,imx21-owire" but Mark thought "fsl,imx21-w1" to
> be better.

Your reasoning that "fsl,imx21-owire" better matched the hardware name is
convincing -- bindings don't have to match the Linux view of things. I'm happy
either way, as long as the binding is documented.

Apologies for any inconvenience I've caused.

> Do I take your Acks to mean "fsl,imx21-owire" is OK?
> I should add a Documentation file for the DT binding too but I was
> waiting for consensus
> on the compatible string first.
> 
> Martin
> 
> 

Thanks,
Mark.