From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mfd: max77686: Use a generic name for the PMIC node in the example Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:11:14 +0300 Message-ID: <55A8C6B2.5020109@cogentembedded.com> References: <1437114567-17629-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <1437114567-17629-3-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1437114567-17629-3-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Javier Martinez Canillas , Lee Jones Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hello. On 7/17/2015 9:29 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > The ePAR standard says that: "the name of a node should be somewhat ePAPR. > generic, reflecting the function of the device and not its precise > programming model." > So, change the max77686 binding document example to use a generic > node name instead of using the chip's name. > Suggested-by: Sergei Shtylyov > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas MBR, Sergei