Am 02.06.2017 um 21:39 schrieb stillcompiling at gmail.com:

On Friday, June 2, 2017 6:30:12 PM PDT Andreas F?rber wrote:

quoted

Am 25.05.2017 um 19:29 schrieb Joshua Clayton:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-evi.dts

b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-evi.dts index 24fe093a66db..a0cbb2d84803 100644

--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-evi.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-evi.dts

@@ -82,6 +82,15 @@

 	pinctrl-names = "default";
 	pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_ecspi1 &pinctrl_ecspi1cs>;
 	status = "okay";

+
+	fpga_spi: cyclonespi at 0 {

"cyclonespi" does not strike me as the best node name.

I am guessing this is a sub-node of a SPI controller node, so no need to
repeat "spi", and Cyclone seems more or less implied by "altr,fpga-".

True.

quoted

Note that the example in the bindings doc uses "evi-fpga-spi". Nodes
don't need to be (shouldn't be?) prefixed with the board. Note that
bindings examples tend to get copied a lot.

Any reason not to just use "fpga at 0" in both places for simplicity?

Sure. fpga: fpga at 0 is probably better.

Note that I was only commenting on the node name, the latter part.

I'm not aware of any rules for the label, so that could remain unchanged
or adopt cyclone_spi from the old node name or whatever is unique and
syntactically valid.

I'll change it in both the dts and the binding doc.

Thanks. Maybe double-check if there's any conventions Xilinx/Lattice DTs
are using.

Cheers,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imend?rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)