On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 05:46:09PM -0400, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:

Would it be better to name this "allwinner,sun4i-a10-pll2-clk" instead
of "allwinner,sun4i-a10-b-pll2-clk"? By encoding the b in it everyone
is going to wonder what to do on the 'c' revision which is the most
common revision.

Not really, the way we works usually is that the compatible is the one
from the first SoC that implemented that IP. If the rev C has the same
IP than rev B, then we're using the rev B compatible.

The revision based rename would then be from
"allwinner,sun4i-a10-pll2-clk" to "allwinner,sun4i-a10-a-pll2-clk".

Though, I'd agree with you. We should have a single compatible in the
DT, a generic one, that would trigger the auto-detection, and might
change it to the rev A one, but the rev B doesn't make much sense.

Maxime
-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140803/d43bd6b5/attachment.sig>