On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: > 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.
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. g. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev