[PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset"
grant.likely at secretlab.ca
Sat Feb 12 05:59:41 EST 2011
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:58:13 +0000
> Yoder Stuart-B08248 <B08248 at freescale.com> wrote:
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Meador Inge [mailto:meadori at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:26 PM
>> > To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>> > Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org; linuxppc-
>> > dev at lists.ozlabs.org
>> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset"
>> > From the feedback I have received so far, the fundamental ideas in this
>> > patch set are sane. However, the following issues still need agreement:
>> > 1. What should be the name of the no reset property?
>> > "pic-no-reset" or "no-reset"?
>> > 2. Should we just keep the existing protected sources implementation
>> > in place?
>> > For (1), I prefer "no-reset".
>> I also prefer plain "no-reset". The property is on a pic node so
>> "pic" on the property seems redundant.
> It's not redundant, it's namespacing. Before there was a generic "status"
> property, someone who wanted a device-specific "status" could have made
> the same argument. Usually we use a vendor prefix to avoid that problem,
> but that won't work here.
Yes, it is a namespace issue. Please keep the 'pic-' or some other
prefix to reduce the likelyhood of a global namespace clash.
'no-reset' is vanilla enough that it is conceivable it could be
defined as part of a common binding sometime in the future.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev