[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170130090910.cer2nvedq3tjleih@lukather>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:09:10 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To: André Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
Cc: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.xyz>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/10] arm: dts: sun8i: split Allwinner H3 .dtsi
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:42:40AM +0000, André Przywara wrote:
> > +&ccu {
> > + compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3-ccu";
> > +};
>
> I believe this kind of sharing nodes is a bit frowned upon in connection
> with sharing .dtsi's. If the compatible name differs, I think it
> deserves to be a separate node spelt out in each SoC's .dtsi.
> This also makes the DT more readable, since a reader doesn't have to
> refer to two files to see what's in that node.
>
> >
> > - codec_analog: codec-analog@...015c0 {
> > - compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3-codec-analog";
> > - reg = <0x01f015c0 0x4>;
> > - };
> > +&mmc0 {
> > + compatible = "allwinner,sun7i-a20-mmc";
> > + clocks = <&ccu CLK_BUS_MMC0>,
> > + <&ccu CLK_MMC0>,
> > + <&ccu CLK_MMC0_OUTPUT>,
> > + <&ccu CLK_MMC0_SAMPLE>;
> > + clock-names = "ahb",
> > + "mmc",
> > + "output",
> > + "sample";
>
> This applies even more here, since the MMC controllers also have
> different clock requirements.
>
> So why can't we just leave the CCU, MMC and possibly the pinctrl nodes
> completely out of the shared h3-h5.dtsi and introduce them from scratch
> in the SoC specific .dtsi?
>
> I think we still have enough identical nodes to justify this kind of
> .dtsi sharing.
We did it that way in the past in order to reduce the unneeded
duplication, but I can definitely understand your point. We'll wait
for the DT maintainers answer on this one.
Thanks,
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists