From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH tty-next v2 4/4] Documentation: devicetree: add bindings documentation for bcm63xx-uart Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:49:05 +0100 Message-ID: <3250738.VGSO94B75K@wuerfel> References: <1392920154-3642-1-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <1392920154-3642-5-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1392920154-3642-5-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Florian Fainelli Cc: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, mbizon@freebox.fr, jogo@openwrt.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, gregory.0xf0@gmail.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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. > +Example: > + > +serial0: uart@600 { > + compatible = "brcm,bcm6345-uart"; > + reg = <0x600 0x1b>; > + interrupts = ; > + clocks = <&periph_clk>; > + clock-names = "periph"; > +}; The device name for a uart is "serial" by convention, not "uart", so better make this serial@600. Arnd