On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:58:13 +0000 Yoder Stuart-B08248 <b08...@freescale.com> wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Meador Inge [mailto:mead...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:26 PM > > To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt > > Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; devicetree-disc...@lists.ozlabs.org; linuxppc- > > d...@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. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev