On 04/13/2012 03:21 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > 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<s...@chromium.org> >> >>>> +++ 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.
I thought that's what the "nvidia," vendor prefix was for. Presumably standardized properties wouldn't have that? _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
