From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH] Docs: dt: Be explicit and consistent in reference to IOMMU specifiers Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:56:25 +0000 Message-ID: <20161216145625.GF20265@leverpostej> References: <1481847373-2602-1-git-send-email-stuart.yoder@nxp.com> <20161216113317.GB20265@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Stuart Yoder , treding-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org Cc: "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org" , "robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 02:08:09PM +0000, Stuart Yoder wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Rutland [mailto:mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org] > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 06:16:13PM -0600, Stuart Yoder wrote: > > > In the iommu-map binding change references to iommu-specifier to > > > "IOMMU specifier" so we are 100% consistent everywhere with terminology > > > and capitalization. > > > > Elsewhere, we always use lower case "xxx-specifier" or "xxx specifier", > > e.g. Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt defines > > "gpio-specifier", ePAPR defines "interrupt specifier". > > > > Given we're morstly consistent on "iommu-specifier" today,could we > > please jsut update the ARM SMMU binding to match that? If we're going to > > fix the dash mismatch, that's a more general, cross-binding thing. > > The notable place where we don't use "iommu-specifier" in in the generic > IOMMU binding itself where we use "IOMMU specifier". True; I failed to notice that. You are right in that the pci-iommu binding is the odd one out. Sorry for the misinformation above. :/ > You're suggesting using "iommu-specifier" everywhere including the > generic binding? Sounds fine to me. It's a nit but would like to see > it consistent everywhere. I certainly agree that we should be consistent. So FWIW, for this patch (as-is): Acked-by: Mark Rutland Thanks, Mark.