Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200728100321.1691745-1-daniel@0x0f.com> <20200728100321.1691745-2-daniel@0x0f.com>
 <20200728191842.GB2778962@bogus> <CAFr9PXkwpNAhQvOJFqLUm-uWoaH=nsNiq_y+OgTf8Z60i4RhRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a0-rZq_aJxWY2+009C91igzC4nHG7XJFwXkbB8bJBertA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0-rZq_aJxWY2+009C91igzC4nHG7XJFwXkbB8bJBertA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Daniel Palmer <daniel@0x0f.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jul 2020 21:34:24 +0900
Message-ID: <CAFr9PXnuMCjhzYQWGBiw3ayDD36qrUc433DsSphyF5+tqetnNg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] dt-bindings: arm: mstar: Add binding details for mstar,pmsleep
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, SoC Team <soc@kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Arnd,

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 21:14, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > Does calling it "mstar,pmsleepv7" make more sense? I'm not sure what
> > to call it really.
>
> Use the name of the oldest chip you know that supports it in there,
> such as "mstar,msc313-pmsleep" if this one is specific to msc313.

That makes sense. I think the original patch got merged to soc/arm/newsoc.
Should I recreate the series or create a new patch to do the corrections?

Slightly off topic but I'm working on the series for the interrupt controller
and I've just renamed it from mstar,msc313e-intc to mstar,v7intc.
I originally called it msc313e because I only knew of that chip but the
same controller is present at the same place in all of the chips so far.
I guess I should probably rename it to mstar,msc313-intc to keep with
the first chip it appeared in pattern?

Thanks,

Daniel