[PATCH] clk: corenet: Update the clock bindings

[Scott Wood]

On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:46 -0600, Tang Yuantian-B29983 wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > Sent: 2014年1月24日 星期五 10:36
> > To: Tang Yuantian-B29983
> > Cc: galak at kernel.crashing.org; linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org;
> > devicetree at vger.kernel.org; Kushwaha Prabhakar-B32579
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: corenet: Update the clock bindings
> > 
> > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:33 -0600, Tang Yuantian-B29983 wrote:
> > > > > > Instead, how about a note like this near the top of the file:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All references to "1.0" and "2.0" refer to the QorIQ chassis
> > > > > > version to which the chip complies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chassis Version		Example Chips
> > > > > > ---------------		-------------
> > > > > > 1.0			p4080, p5020, p5040
> > > > > > 2.0			t4240, b4860, t1040
> > > > > >
> > > > > Better, I will update.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW, this binding and the associated driver really should be
> > > > > > called "qoriq-clock", not "corenet-clock".  This would match the
> > > > > > compatible string, and it doesn't really have much to do with
> > > > > > corenet (which is part of the QorIQ chassis v1 and v2, but not
> > > > > > *this* part).  Do you know if the chassis v3 clock interface
> > > > > > will be similar enough to
> > > > share a driver?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Doesn't QorIQ include some low-end socs, like p1022, p1020?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but those aren't "QorIQ Chassis 1.0" or "QorIQ Chassis 2.0".
> > > > They're mpc85xx-family chips.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, if "qoriq" makes sense for the compatible, I don't see
> > > > why it doesn't make sense for the driver.
> > > >
> > > So, "Corenet" is appropriate for driver.
> > > If something should change, that must be compatible string.
> > 
> > No.  Corenet is a bus interconnect, not a chip family (despite abuse of
> > the name in other contexts in Linux/U-Boot).  And the binding with qoriq
> > has already been accepted.
> > 
> QorIQ is not the best name either since it include the low-end socs.
> What the name should be? 

Again, those low-end chips do not implement "QorIQ Chassis 1.0" or
"QorIQ Chassis 2.0".  That they have "QorIQ" in their name is
irrelevant.

-Scott