Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:37:12 -0700 | From | Stephen Boyd <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] clk: stm32h7: Add stm32h743 clock driver |
| |
On 07/20, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > Hi Gabriel, > > On 07/20/2017 11:31 AM, Gabriel FERNANDEZ wrote: > > Hi Vladimir, > > > > > > On 07/19/2017 11:20 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > >> Hello Gabriel, > >> > >> On 07/19/2017 05:25 PM, gabriel.fernandez@st.com wrote: > >>> From: Gabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernandez@st.com> > >>> + > >>> + rcc: rcc@58024400 { > >> 'rcc' as a generic device node name is awkward. > >> > >> I believe the main function of the device is clock controller (unlikely > >> a generic reset controller can be converted into a clock controller), > >> the locations of the document and device driver also indicate that > >> primarily it is a clock controller, so I suggest to replace device node > >> name with 'clock-controller' like below: > > I prefer to keep rcc node name, to be coherent with the other ST > > platforms (STM32F4/F7) > > the thing is, a device node name is expected to comply with ePAPR or > the devicetree specification, which says > > The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting > the function of the device and not its precise programming model. > > If devicetree and CCF maintainers are fine with 'rcc', I won't object, > my role is just to emphasize the found issue and recommend to use another > and more common name 'clock-controller', it is a simple and fortunately > backward compatible change to other ST platforms as well.
Yes. It should be generic so clock-controller or clock-reset-controller is appropriate here.
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
| |