[PATCH v2 1/2] clk/zynq/clkc: Add 'fclk-enable' feature

[Sören Brinkmann]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 02:04:06PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 10/29/2013 09:26 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > 
> > On Oct 28, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > 
> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/zynq-7000.txt
> >>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/zynq-7000.txt index
> >>>>> d99af878f5d7..11fdd146ec83 100644
> >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/zynq-7000.txt
> >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/zynq-7000.txt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,10 @@ Required properties:
> >>>>> Optional properties:
> >>>>>  - clocks : as described in the clock bindings
> >>>>>  - clock-names : as described in the clock bindings
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + - fclk-enable : Bit mask to enable FCLKs in cases no proper CCF
> >>>>
> >>>> Since it's a vendor specific property, it should include vendor
> >>>> prefix.
> >>>
> >>> The whole driver is vendor specific. Should there really be another
> >>> prefix for that property?
> >>
> >> Yes. If a property is introduced just for use by this particular driver 
> >> then it must be prepended by a vendor prefix. That's a general rule.
> > 
> > Most all nodes are vendor specific by definition ;).
> 
> Is this really generic rule? I haven't seen/heard any point regarding this on KS.
> 
> I don't think we should use prefix here. It is xilinx specific option
> but there shouldn't be any problem to use fclk-enable without any prefix.
> Because it means we have to also rename ps-clk-frequency.
> 
> We are using xlnx prefix for properties which are autogenerated from design tools
> which is not even this case.

So, what is the final call on this? Respin this and changing the prop name,
or leaving it as is?

	Thanks,
	Sören