From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Documentation: tps65086: Add DT bindings for the TPS65086 PMIC Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:26:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20151021152659.GF3270@x1> References: <20151019091311.GH31804@x1> <5625095F.5080204@ti.com> <20151019152100.GK31804@x1> <56250AF9.3030907@ti.com> <20151020113128.GN31804@x1> <56264990.8050501@ti.com> <20151021084633.GB3270@x1> <20151021102952.GJ32054@sirena.org.uk> <20151021111832.GC3270@x1> <20151021121409.GA8232@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151021121409.GA8232@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: "Andrew F. Davis" , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Alexandre Courbot , Grygorii Strashko , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:18:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:46:33AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Andrew F. Davis wrote: >=20 > > > It is however the normal way we write compatible strings - the cl= ass > > > information would normaly go in the node name (ie, i2c@7000c000 o= r > > > whatever). >=20 > > I didn't say it hasn't been done before, just that I didn't like it > > for the aforementioned reasons. I can also find 1000's of compatib= le > > strings which do append "-", so it's not exactly an > > unheard of practice. >=20 > It's a pretty substantial change in the way we make compatible string= s > that we probably want to discuss more widely if we want to adopt it - > we've not been using that idiom and it's pretty surprising. I'm not > really sure it help much and we do already have the pre-@ noise words > for this purpose (as well as comments in the DT). I'm not *that* fussed about it to justify starting-up wider community discussions. My only point is that: compatible =3D ",udw9283"; =2E.. is meaningless gibberish and I think it'd be better to be more forthcoming which prevents having to dig around in DTS files for the node name/label for true device/type identification. --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog