Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761462AbcLPO6E (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2016 09:58:04 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:54994 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754029AbcLPO54 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2016 09:57:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:56:25 +0000 From: Mark Rutland To: Stuart Yoder , treding@nvidia.com Cc: "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "joro@8bytes.org" , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "will.deacon@arm.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Docs: dt: Be explicit and consistent in reference to IOMMU specifiers Message-ID: <20161216145625.GF20265@leverpostej> References: <1481847373-2602-1-git-send-email-stuart.yoder@nxp.com> <20161216113317.GB20265@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1410 Lines: 37 On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 02:08:09PM +0000, Stuart Yoder wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Rutland [mailto:mark.rutland@arm.com] > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 06:16:13PM -0600, Stuart Yoder wrote: > > > 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". True; I failed to notice that. You are right in that the pci-iommu binding is the odd one out. Sorry for the misinformation above. :/ > 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. I certainly agree that we should be consistent. So FWIW, for this patch (as-is): Acked-by: Mark Rutland Thanks, Mark.