From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:21:40 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 4/7] tegra: fdt: Add NAND controller binding and definitions In-Reply-To: <4F88937D.3090809@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1334341777-2681-1-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> <1334341777-2681-5-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> <4F8873D1.2010701@freescale.com> <4F88937D.3090809@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <4F8898E4.4000505@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 04/13/2012 03:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 04/13/2012 12:43 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 04/13/2012 01:29 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Add a NAND controller along with a bindings file for review. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > >>> +++ b/doc/device-tree-bindings/nand/nvidia-nand.txt > >>> +wp-gpio : GPIO of write-protect line, three cells in the format: >>> + phandle, parameter, flags >> >> nvidia,nand-wp-gpio > > I'm not convinced about this. For example many SDHCI bindings use just > "wp-gpios" not "shdci-wp-gpios". Is there really a need to keep the > property names unique across all bindings, even though a given node only > relies on one binding? > Yeah, there's a lot of bad practice in the existing trees. But the general recommendation for a while now has been to namespace properties that aren't defined in standardized, device-indpendent way. That way we don't get conflicts if we want to use that name for a standard property in the future, and there's less confusion if multiple people use the same name in different devices with different semantics. -Scott