Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752798Ab3FCHuR (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jun 2013 03:50:17 -0400 Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:57784 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750925Ab3FCHuL (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jun 2013 03:50:11 -0400 From: "Mohammed, Afzal" To: "Cousson, Benoit" CC: Stephen Warren , Jon Hunter , Russell King , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Rob Herring , "Grant Likely" , Benoit Cousson , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 11/14] Documentation: dt: binding: omap: am43x timer Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 11/14] Documentation: dt: binding: omap: am43x timer Thread-Index: AQHOWufOwwwB7s/tqE2Htmmr900F0pkal7yAgAALLwCAAST2AP//jDYAgACKqgD//8gegIAH+0+Q Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 07:49:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: <223d90dc9eeab13d8496690d336cdf0f7d27cd22.1369658705.git.afzal@ti.com> <51A520B5.8040803@gmail.com> <51A52A16.1040204@wwwdotorg.org> <51A5BEB6.6070809@ti.com> <51A60427.6010409@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <51A60427.6010409@ti.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.24.170.142] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id r537oNmM005251 Content-Length: 1222 Lines: 28 Hi Benoit, On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 19:05:35, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > And in this case, you do not introduce any new revision. > > There is no point to update the binding each time we add a new SoC > variant that will contain the exact same IP. > > I think it will mainly confuse the user that will wonder what is > different in that version compare to the previous one, moreover we can > end up with hundred of entries for the exact same IP for nothing. > > The real problem is due to the introduction of the SoC name in the > device compatible name. That does introduced a SoC level information > that is mostly irrelevant at device level. I can understand why it was > done for practical aspect when the IP version is not well identified, > but that can lead to this proliferation of new pointless bindings. As opinions on $subject seems not yet to be conclusive, I plan to rebase DTS patch (14/14) over your 'for_3.11/dts' branch (that makes use of C preprocessor on OMAP DTS) and post separately dropping 11-14 patches, is that okay ? Regards Afzal ????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?