Re: [RFC] mpc5200 device tree bindings refinement

["Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>]

On 2/12/07, Yoder Stuart-B08248 <stuart.yoder@freescale.com> wrote:
> My suggestion would be to _not_ create a brand new property
> called system-frequency.  Could we not use the existing
> clock-frequency property instead (defined to mean the
> Fsystem frequency)?
>
> Currently across many device types (e.g. PCI, serial) the
> clock-frequency property is used to describe the clock
> frequency in a way specific to that device.  Could that work
> here?
>
> If you did need to create a new property unique to this
> particular device it should have the vendor name preprended
> to the property (e.g. linux,phandle).

Now that I think about it some more; Is a vendor name prefix really
warranted here?  I don't see any other examples of vendor prefix being
used for other SoC property values.  (linux,phandle is the notable
exception, but that's not an SoC thing).

I bring up this issue because it seems quite inconsistent.  Most of
the device nodes already uses custom properties w/o any vendor prefix.
 Why make this one the first with a prefix?  :-)

g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely@secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195