> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Rutland [mailto:mark.rutl...@arm.com] > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 5:33 AM > To: Stuart Yoder <stuart.yo...@nxp.com> > Cc: robh...@kernel.org; devicet...@vger.kernel.org; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; j...@8bytes.org; > io...@lists.linux-foundation.org; will.dea...@arm.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Docs: dt: Be explicit and consistent in reference to > IOMMU specifiers > > Hi Stuart, > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 06:16:13PM -0600, Stuart Yoder wrote: > > The generic IOMMU binding says that the meaning of an 'IOMMU specifier' > > is defined by the binding of a specific SMMU. The ARM SMMU binding > > never explicitly uses the term 'specifier' at all. Update implicit > > references to use the explicit term. > > > > In the iommu-map binding change references to iommu-specifier to > > "IOMMU specifier" so we are 100% consistent everywhere with terminology > > and capitalization. > > Elsewhere, we always use lower case "xxx-specifier" or "xxx specifier", > e.g. Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt defines > "gpio-specifier", ePAPR defines "interrupt specifier". > > Given we're morstly consistent on "iommu-specifier" today,could we > please jsut update the ARM SMMU binding to match that? If we're going to > fix the dash mismatch, that's a more general, cross-binding thing.
The notable place where we don't use "iommu-specifier" in in the generic IOMMU binding itself where we use "IOMMU specifier". You're suggesting using "iommu-specifier" everywhere including the generic binding? Sounds fine to me. It's a nit but would like to see it consistent everywhere. Thanks, Stuart
