[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <079348edcb511cefb9f4d76877d50cb7@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 16:32:27 -0700
From: rishabhb@...eaurora.org
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm@...ts.infradead.org, tsoni@...eaurora.org,
ckadabi@...eaurora.org, evgreen@...omium.org, robh@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] dt-bindings: Documentation for qcom, llcc
On 2018-05-16 11:08, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting rishabhb@...eaurora.org (2018-05-16 10:33:14)
>> On 2018-05-16 10:03, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> > Quoting Rishabh Bhatnagar (2018-05-08 13:22:00)
>>
>> >> +
>> >> +- max-slices:
>> >> + usage: required
>> >> + Value Type: <u32>
>> >> + Definition: Number of cache slices supported by hardware
>> >> +
>> >> +Example:
>> >> +
>> >> + llcc: qcom,llcc@...0000 {
>> >
>> > cache-controller@...0000 ?
>> >
>> We have tried to use consistent naming convention as in llcc_*
>> everywhere.
>> Using cache-controller will mix and match the naming convention. Also
>> in
>> the documentation it is explained what llcc is and its full form.
>>
>
> DT prefers standard node names as opposed to vendor specific node
> names.
> Isn't it a cache controller? I fail to see why this can't be done.
Hi Stephen,
The driver is vendor specific and also for uniformity purposes we
preferred
to go with this name.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists