[PATCH v2] ARM: DT: binding fixup to align with vendor-prefixes.txt

[Christian Daudt]

On 13-08-05 09:01 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 04:27 PM, Christian Daudt wrote:
>> [ this is a follow-up to this discussion:
>> http://archive.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20130730.230827.a1ceb12a.en.html ]
>> This patchset renames all uses of "bcm," name bindings to
>> "brcm," as they were done prior to knowing that brcm had
>> already been standardized as Broadcom vendor prefix
>> (in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt).
>> This will not cause any churn on devices because none of
>> these bindings have made it into production yet.
>> Also rename the the following dt binding docs that had "bcm,"
>> in their name for consistency:
>>   - bcm,kona-sdhci.txt -> kona-sdhci.txt
>>   - bcm,kona-timer.txt -> kona-timer.txt
>> Changes since v1:
>>   - added driver match table entries for deprecated names
> That should usually go below the --- line so it doesn't make it into the
> final patch description.
Heh - I always thought that the intent was the contrary. I just looked 
through git history and most of my previous patches have made it into 
git with the changelog, and I see I'm not alone in having changelog 
history as part of git commit message. But if it is the more common way 
I'll be glad to change going forward.

>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/bcm11351.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/bcm11351.txt
>> index fb7b5cd..cf1b206 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/bcm11351.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/bcm11351.txt
> I wonder if this patch should rename bindings/arm/bcm/ to
> bindings/arm/brcm/ too?
I'd rather keep it as-is - to me the vendor prefix is a DT concept only, 
and I'd rather not extend its tentacles into other parts of the kernel 
(and the other arm/ subtrees in there all show no attempt at 
dirname==vendor-prefix), but I'm ok with changing it to broadcom if you 
prefer.
>
>>   Required root node property:
>>   
>> -compatible = "bcm,bcm11351";
>> +compatible = "brcm,bcm11351";
> In a patch of mine that deprecated a property, Mark wondered if it would
> make sense to mention the old deprecated DT content simply to document
> that it existed, so that old DTs would still make sense when checking
> the documentation. I wonder if the same argument applies to this patch?
>
>
I would think the opposite. Deprecated items should be dropped from 
documentation. They are in the code (for a holdover period) but clearly 
marked as deprecated. No one should be extending the life of these, and 
adding documentation on it is a step in the wrong direction of making it 
easier for it to linger beyond what it should.

  thanks,
    csd