[GIT PULL] ARM: Keystone DTS for 4.6

[santosh shilimkar]

On 2/24/2016 5:28 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 01:09:10AM -0800, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> The following changes since commit 92e963f50fc74041b5e9e744c330dca48e04f08d:
>>
>>    Linux 4.5-rc1 (2016-01-24 13:06:47 -0800)
>>
>> are available in the git repository at:
>>
>>    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ssantosh/linux-keystone.git tags/keystone_dts_for_4.6
>>
>> for you to fetch changes up to 5f67dae54262adeb0bfd98fa4c7a9b62548c9f25:
>>
>>    ARM: dts: keystone: Add minimum support for K2G evm (2016-02-20 00:56:06 -0800)
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ARM: DTS: Add new bindings for K2G and the K2G evm
>>
>> K2G SoC family is the newest version of the Keystone family of processors.
>>
>> The technical reference manual for K2G can be found here:
>> http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/spruhy8/spruhy8.pdf
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Nishanth Menon (1):
>>        ARM: keystone: Create new binding for K2G SoC
>>
>> Vitaly Andrianov (2):
>>        ARM: dts: keystone: Add Initial DT support for TI K2G SoC family
>>        ARM: dts: keystone: Add minimum support for K2G evm
>>
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/arm/keystone/keystone.txt  |  5 ++
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile                         |  3 +-
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/k2g-evm.dts                      | 32 ++++++++
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/k2g.dtsi                         | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   arch/arm/mach-keystone/keystone.c                  |  1 +
>>   5 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>   create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/k2g-evm.dts
>>   create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/k2g.dtsi
>
> We've been asking people to prefix the DTS files with vendor or platform
> prefixes, so that the namespace under arch/arm/boot/dts/ somewhat gets
> partitioned.
>
Sounds good though it will be hard to rename existing files now
assuming they have been already in use.

> It's really unfortunate that we didn't notice this when the other k2?-* entries
> were added, especially since there's a keystone* set of files too.
>
I missed as well about the nomenclature followed across.

> How do you feel about moving things around and prefixing with keystone*
> instead?  We can argue whether users are affected by a rename of already
> existing files, or if those can be renamed too. I'll leave that up to you, but
> k2? seems like too short a prefix here.
>
I will definitely rename these new ones and resend the pull request.
For older ones, let me RFC it in next merge window and if no one
complains, will rename them too.

Regards,
Santosh