From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH tty-next v2 4/4] Documentation: devicetree: add bindings documentation for bcm63xx-uart Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:49:46 +0000 Message-ID: <20140221134946.GA20449@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1392920154-3642-1-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <1392920154-3642-5-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <3250738.VGSO94B75K@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3250738.VGSO94B75K@wuerfel> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Florian Fainelli , "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "mbizon@freebox.fr" , "jogo@openwrt.org" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "gregory.0xf0@gmail.com" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:49:05PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Two more comments: > > On Thursday 20 February 2014 10:15:54 Florian Fainelli wrote: > > +- clock-names: should contain "periph" for the functional clock > > I think we should really start standardizing on the clock names more. > We don't have any uart that calls its functional clock "periph" so > far. > > How about naming it "fclk" or "uart"? > > I'd actually prefer making it an anonymous clock, but I know that > will just trigger comments about what might happen if it turns > out we need more than one clock for a future version of this device. Yup ;) I'm happy as long as we have a well-defined name for each clock input, regardless of what those particular names might be. Mark.