Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-20 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Monday 20 May 2013 21:19:33 Daniel Tang wrote: > On 20/05/2013, at 5:48 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Sunday 19 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: > >> If the vendors for the on-SOC components are unknown, should we just > >> leave the compatible strings as is (i.e. "nspire-XXX")? > > > > In

Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-20 Thread Daniel Tang
On 20/05/2013, at 5:48 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sunday 19 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: >> If the vendors for the on-SOC components are unknown, should we just >> leave the compatible strings as is (i.e. "nspire-XXX")? > > In that case, I would use the name of the company that made the

Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-20 Thread Daniel Tang
On 20/05/2013, at 5:48 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote: On Sunday 19 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: If the vendors for the on-SOC components are unknown, should we just leave the compatible strings as is (i.e. nspire-XXX)? In that case, I would use the name of the company that made the

Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-20 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Monday 20 May 2013 21:19:33 Daniel Tang wrote: On 20/05/2013, at 5:48 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote: On Sunday 19 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: If the vendors for the on-SOC components are unknown, should we just leave the compatible strings as is (i.e. nspire-XXX)? In that

Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-19 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Sunday 19 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: > If the vendors for the on-SOC components are unknown, should we just > leave the compatible strings as is (i.e. "nspire-XXX")? In that case, I would use the name of the company that made the SoC. I believe someone mentioned it was made by LSI logic.

Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-19 Thread Daniel Tang
On 16/05/2013, at 10:17 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 16 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: >> >> On 16/05/2013, at 12:07 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >>> You are missing a binding in Documentation/devicetree, same as for some of >>> the other drivers in this series. >> >> Should we be

Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-19 Thread Daniel Tang
On 16/05/2013, at 10:17 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote: On Thursday 16 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: On 16/05/2013, at 12:07 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote: You are missing a binding in Documentation/devicetree, same as for some of the other drivers in this series. Should

Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-19 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Sunday 19 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: If the vendors for the on-SOC components are unknown, should we just leave the compatible strings as is (i.e. nspire-XXX)? In that case, I would use the name of the company that made the SoC. I believe someone mentioned it was made by LSI logic.

Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-16 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Thursday 16 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: > > On 16/05/2013, at 12:07 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > You are missing a binding in Documentation/devicetree, same as for some of > > the other drivers in this series. > > Should we be adding a vendor prefix to it too? If so, we're not sure

Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-16 Thread Daniel Tang
On 16/05/2013, at 12:07 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > You are missing a binding in Documentation/devicetree, same as for some of > the other drivers in this series. Should we be adding a vendor prefix to it too? If so, we're not sure whether to use "ti," or not since this isn't an official port

Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-16 Thread Daniel Tang
On 16/05/2013, at 12:07 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote: You are missing a binding in Documentation/devicetree, same as for some of the other drivers in this series. Should we be adding a vendor prefix to it too? If so, we're not sure whether to use ti, or not since this isn't an

Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-16 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Thursday 16 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: On 16/05/2013, at 12:07 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote: You are missing a binding in Documentation/devicetree, same as for some of the other drivers in this series. Should we be adding a vendor prefix to it too? If so, we're not sure

Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-15 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Sunday 12 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Tang > --- > drivers/clk/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/clk/clk-nspire.c | 141 > +++ > 2 files changed, 142 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk-nspire.c You are

Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-15 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Sunday 12 May 2013, Daniel Tang wrote: Signed-off-by: Daniel Tang dt.ta...@gmail.com --- drivers/clk/Makefile | 1 + drivers/clk/clk-nspire.c | 141 +++ 2 files changed, 142 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk-nspire.c

[RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-11 Thread Daniel Tang
Signed-off-by: Daniel Tang --- drivers/clk/Makefile | 1 + drivers/clk/clk-nspire.c | 141 +++ 2 files changed, 142 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk-nspire.c diff --git a/drivers/clk/Makefile b/drivers/clk/Makefile index

[RFC PATCHv3 3/6] clk: Add TI-Nspire clock drivers

2013-05-11 Thread Daniel Tang
Signed-off-by: Daniel Tang dt.ta...@gmail.com --- drivers/clk/Makefile | 1 + drivers/clk/clk-nspire.c | 141 +++ 2 files changed, 142 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk-nspire.c diff --git a/drivers/clk/Makefile