Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756609Ab3FCJyP (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jun 2013 05:54:15 -0400 Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:47062 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754150Ab3FCJyL (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jun 2013 05:54:11 -0400 Message-ID: <51AC6797.1040304@ti.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:53:27 +0200 From: Benoit Cousson Organization: Texas Instruments User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Mohammed, Afzal" 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 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1425 Lines: 37 Hi Afzal, On 06/03/2013 09:49 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote: > 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 ? Yes, that sounds good to me. Thanks, Benoit -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/