From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] Documentation: dt-bindings: Describe SROMc configuration Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:09:28 +0900 Message-ID: <56330998.5060706@samsung.com> References: <046d990092dc85cf50db9082fc894d93a3ece7c0.1446018918.git.p.fedin@samsung.com> <563183F9.6020806@samsung.com> <008001d1121d$c0fef160$42fcd420$@samsung.com> <003c01d1123f$002a3220$007e9660$@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <003c01d1123f$002a3220$007e9660$@samsung.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Fedin Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, 'Kukjin Kim' , 'Pankaj Dubey' , devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 29.10.2015 20:43, Pavel Fedin wrote: > Hello! > >>>> Any vendor prefix here? How generic is this? >>> >>> I just don't know... Does *everything* really need a vendor prefix? How readable would that >> be? "compatible" property already says >>> that it's samsung-exynos-specific. And IMHO it's quite obvious that properties of vendor- >> specific device are automatically >>> vendor-specific. >>> Ok, i am currently fixing up the rest and will post v4 soon, and will Cc: it to devicetree >> ML. >> >> Which my reply you are referring to? You stripped part of some >> sentence and put it without *any context*. Just random sentence. >> I asked for vendor prefix in few places... srom-timing? width? And I >> do not remember where I used exactly these words. > > Ok, sorry, i promise to improve. :) > Anyway, i have figured out how to add sub-devices, and heavily modified the whole thing. And indeed, vendor prefix is now very useful, so i added it to all three properties. Making v4... Actually now I found: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/gpmc-eth.txt Aren't you duplicating this work? This looks very, very similar. Best regards, Krzysztof