From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]:61890 "EHLO mail-ob0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756138Ab3HWTKB (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:10:01 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id wo10so1082505obc.13 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:10:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1377165378-9589-1-git-send-email-larsi@wh2.tu-dresden.de> References: <1377165378-9589-1-git-send-email-larsi@wh2.tu-dresden.de> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 21:10:00 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: mcp23s08: rename the device tree property From: Linus Walleij Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lars Poeschel Cc: Lars Poeschel , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Stephen Warren , Ian Campbell , Rob Landley , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" List-ID: On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Lars Poeschel wrote: > From: Lars Poeschel > > The device tree property should be more descriptive. > microchip seems more reasonable than mcp. As there are no > in tree users of this property, so the rename can still be > done without pain. > > Signed-off-by: Lars Poeschel So do I apply this to the GPIO tree now or what? Are the DT custodians happy? Yours, Linus Walleij