On 07/20, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

Hi Gabriel,

On 07/20/2017 11:31 AM, Gabriel FERNANDEZ wrote:

quoted

Hi Vladimir,


On 07/19/2017 11:20 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

quoted

Hello Gabriel,

On 07/19/2017 05:25 PM, gabriel.fernandez at st.com wrote:

quoted

From: Gabriel Fernandez <redacted>
+
+	rcc: rcc at 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