Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] dt-bindings: pinctrl: add imx7ulp pinctrl binding doc

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:04:58AM +0000, A.S. Dong wrote:

If we really want to change, 'IMX7ULP1' may be a little strange as 'IMX7ULP' is
the official external name and all other places are using it.
So IMX7ULP may be more suitable.

Yes, I actually meant IMX7ULP, which matches how we name the SoC
elsewhere in the kernel.

Then next generation may be:
IMX7ULP0_PAD_PTC0_PTC0.
Vs
IMX7ULP_PAD_PTC0_PTC0

Just not much better than:
ULP1_PAD_PTC0_PTC0.
vs
ULP0_PAD_PTC0_PTC0

That's why I did not do it initially.

However, if you do want the change, i'm okay to do it.

For the next generation, we will have a name for it in the kernel
anyway.  The pinctrl macro simply follows that name.

Shawn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On 2017-05-24 23:23, Shawn Guo wrote:

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:04:58AM +0000, A.S. Dong wrote:

quoted

If we really want to change, 'IMX7ULP1' may be a little strange as 'IMX7ULP' is
the official external name and all other places are using it.
So IMX7ULP may be more suitable.

Yes, I actually meant IMX7ULP, which matches how we name the SoC
elsewhere in the kernel.

All the other arch/arm/boot/dts/imx*pinfunc.h use MX7ULP (without the
I), but I am fine with either one.

--
Stefan

quoted

Then next generation may be:
IMX7ULP0_PAD_PTC0_PTC0.
Vs
IMX7ULP_PAD_PTC0_PTC0

Just not much better than:
ULP1_PAD_PTC0_PTC0.
vs
ULP0_PAD_PTC0_PTC0

That's why I did not do it initially.

However, if you do want the change, i'm okay to do it.

For the next generation, we will have a name for it in the kernel
anyway.  The pinctrl macro simply follows that name.

Shawn