From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] watchdog: qcom: document device tree bindings Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:56:00 +0100 Message-ID: <20140924105600.GD5729@leverpostej> References: <337231c0fc8b16b4f37e1e3b85cb0246f357a64d.1411513109.git.joshc@codeaurora.org> <2941802.u7NP2737aD@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2941802.u7NP2737aD@wuerfel> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Josh Cartwright , Wim Van Sebroeck , "linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Kumar Gala , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Ian Campbell , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:44:44AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 23 September 2014 18:04:37 Josh Cartwright wrote: > > +- clocks : shall contain the input clock phandle > > Just nitpicking, but this is not just a phandle, it's a clock > descriptor, which is a phandle followed by a set of arguments, > which may be empty, depending the on the clock controller > implementation. We're _extremely_ inconsistent with terminology, so it's not confusing people don't know what to put here. Elsewhere people say "phandle + clock specifier" (which is correct), "clock reference" (which is ok, but sounds like a phandle), etc. From what I recall some documentation says some *-specifier properties include the phandle too. It would be really nice if we had one consistent way of refering to phandle+args style properties. > > I would just call it 'the input clock', rather than 'input clock > phandle'. That's fine by me, given clocks is a well-understood standard property. Mark.