From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:18:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC v4 1/4] watchdog: renesas-rwdt: add driver Message-Id: <20160318001852.GA17140@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <1452287553-18895-2-git-send-email-wsa@the-dreams.de> In-Reply-To: <1452287553-18895-2-git-send-email-wsa@the-dreams.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:48:29AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> > +Required properties: > >> > +- compatible : Should be "renesas,rwdt-r8a7795"; > >> > >> "renesas,r8a7795-rwdt", and "renesas,rcar-gen3-rwdt" as a fallback, to match > >> current best practices? > > > > What about "renesas,rcar-gen2-rwdt" since Gen2 and Gen3 are identical? > > Are they? :-) Yes, at the datasheet level, FWIW... How about "renesas,rcar-gen2-rwdt" and "renesas,rcar-gen3-rwdt". That way we have flexibility if the IP turns out to be different. This is in keeping with the scheme I have been slowly rolling out over various drivers for Renesas IP. > > But why "r8a7795-rwdt" with SoC first? Looking at the r8a7795.dtsi, > > "-" seems to be more dominant than > > "-"? Ah, confusing again... > > For new bindings, we follow practices set by the rest of the DT crowd. +1