From: p.fedin@samsung.com (Pavel Fedin) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:43:15 +0300 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/4] Documentation: dt-bindings: Describe SROMc configuration In-Reply-To: References: <046d990092dc85cf50db9082fc894d93a3ece7c0.1446018918.git.p.fedin@samsung.com> <563183F9.6020806@samsung.com> <008001d1121d$c0fef160$42fcd420$@samsung.com> Message-ID: <003c01d1123f$002a3220$007e9660$@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello! > >> Any vendor prefix here? How generic is this? > > > > I just don't know... Does *everything* really need a vendor prefix? How readable would that > be? "compatible" property already says > > that it's samsung-exynos-specific. And IMHO it's quite obvious that properties of vendor- > specific device are automatically > > vendor-specific. > > Ok, i am currently fixing up the rest and will post v4 soon, and will Cc: it to devicetree > ML. > > Which my reply you are referring to? You stripped part of some > sentence and put it without *any context*. Just random sentence. > I asked for vendor prefix in few places... srom-timing? width? And I > do not remember where I used exactly these words. Ok, sorry, i promise to improve. :) Anyway, i have figured out how to add sub-devices, and heavily modified the whole thing. And indeed, vendor prefix is now very useful, so i added it to all three properties. Making v4... Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia