Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: added new pwm-sifive driver documentation | From | Andreas Färber <> | Date | Sun, 29 Apr 2018 23:01:20 +0200 |
| |
Am 29.04.2018 um 22:51 schrieb Wesley Terpstra: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Thierry Reding > <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 03:59:56PM -0700, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: >>> +Required properties: >>> +- compatible: should be "sifive,pwm0" >> >> Why not simply "sifive,pwm"? If this is supposed to be some sort of >> version number, then it is more customary to use the name of the first >> SoC that integrates the IP. There are some exceptions, like for example >> when the IP is third-party and is integrated in a number of different >> SoCs. In such cases the IP is often properly versioned. But that doesn't >> seem to be the case here. > > It is indeed a version number. The first SoC which integrated this IP > cannot run linux. We've put a version number like this into all of our > IP blocks. Isn't an increasing number, which clearly indicates > increased functionality, better than a reference to a sequence of SoCs > whose relationships are not all that clear?
"pwm0" sounds like a zero-indexed instance of some pwm block. If 0 is the version here, I'd suggest to make it "pwm-0" for example - you might want to take a look at the Xilinx bindings, which use a strict x.yy suffix.
Most SoCs don't have clearly versioned IP though, that's why for community-contributed bindings the first SoC we encounter the IP in usually gets the name.
Regards, Andreas
-- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
|  |