Re: [PATCH 2/6] PowerPC 440EPx: Sequoia DTS

[Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>]

>>>>> Yeah, better names please -- if possible, something that someone
>>>>> without knowledge of this SoC will understand what it is.
>>>>
>>>> I think the names are probably ok - I'm assuming they're in keeping
>>>> with the convention I've used of using the same names / 
>>>> abbreviations
>>>> as in the CPU user manual.  I'm asking just for my own information,
>>>> although a comment might not be a bad idea.
>>
>> Fine with me -- I personally prefer "system-device-controller"
>> and "clock-power-controller" or similar, but that is mostly a
>> matter of taste.  As long as it's human readable it's fine.
>
> Actually, it occurs to me that I've only sometimes been using that
> convention for the names:  basically just for the weirdo chip control
> devices that don't have a more widespread generic name.

It's pretty darn hard to make good sensible "generic names" for
some of the devices on a SoC; using the acronym that's in the
documentation for that SoC certainly isn't the worst choice.

>>> +    Flash partitions
>>> +     - reg :
>>> +     - read-only : (optional)
>>
>> I'll hold off commenting on this until you've finish writing it,
>> you probably know my opinion about it anyway :-)
>
> Heh.. actually I was kind of hoping for your input on what's still
> missing.  For example, I don't know what the necessary extra
> properties for JEDEC chips are.

I meant for the "partitions" stuff only.

For the JEDEC chips, we need a "vendor-id" and "device-id"
property at least (or similar names -- whatever is general
practice for this); both are a single byte, encoded as with
encode-int.

>> One thing though -- what _exactly_ does "read-only" signify?
>
> That's... a good question.

Yeah.  It seems to me that the way it is currently used is
pure policy enforcement, which doesn't belong in the device
tree.


Segher