On 16/05/2013, at 10:17 PM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > On Thursday 16 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: >> >> On 16/05/2013, at 12:07 AM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: >> >>> You are missing a binding in Documentation/devicetree, same as for some of >>> the other drivers in this series. >> >> Should we be adding a vendor prefix to it too? If so, we're not sure whether >> to use "ti," or not since this isn't an official port by TI. > > The binding describes the hardware, it should not matter who does the port. > However, any part of the tree that is not actually from TI should have a > vendor prefix indicating who made that part. IIRC, the SoC used in there > is from TI, so you should use something else for the on-soc components. >
If the vendors for the on-SOC components are unknown, should we just leave the compatible strings as is (i.e. "nspire-XXX")? >>> It seems strange to assign the clk_name variable to node->name >>> first and then overriding it with the clock-output-names property. >>> Is that intentional? If so, please explain it in a comment. >>> >> >> I copied that bit of boilerplate from drivers/clk/clk-fixed-rate.c but >> I'm guessing it's to use the node name as the clock name unless there >> is a property called "clock-output-names" > > Ah, I see. It seems you forgot to add the clock maintainer to Cc in the > mail. Mike is the one who will have to take you patch anyway, so I assume > he will comment on this if you did it wrong. > > Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
