On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:58:13 +0000
Yoder Stuart-B08248 [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Meador Inge [mailto:meadori@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:26 PM
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; linuxppc-
dev@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