From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:41:36 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] PowerPC 440EPx: Sequoia DTS Message-ID: <20070807034136.GC13522@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070730150648.GA5005@ru.mvista.com> <20070801020836.GB31391@localhost.localdomain> <65ff446478a9fd0a48061079d5f04f8f@kernel.crashing.org> <20070801050422.GI31391@localhost.localdomain> <20070801054751.GM31391@localhost.localdomain> <59e87834966d80bb143e1683fe751cd1@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <59e87834966d80bb143e1683fe751cd1@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 09:59:24PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >>> 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. I *have* been strictly keeping to that convention for the labels in the dts (which is why the PLB<->OPB bridge node is labelled POB rather than OPB, for example). > > - Required properties: > > + - compatible : should contain the specific model of flash > > chip(s) used > > "if known". Added. > > + followed by either "cfi-flash" or "jedec-flash" > > > > + 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. > One thing though -- what _exactly_ does "read-only" signify? That's... a good question. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson