[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YLSpCXNtut3z8U9a@orome.fritz.box>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 11:14:49 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Agneli <poczt@...tonmail.ch>, Paul Fertser <fercerpav@...il.com>,
Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@...il.com>,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 04/10] ARM: tegra: Add reg property to Tegra20 EMC
table device-tree nodes
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:25:54PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> The reg property is now specified for the emc-tables nodes in the Tegra20
> device-tree binding. Add reg property to the EMC table device-tree nodes
> of Tegra20 board device-trees in order to silence dt_binding_check warning
> about the missing property.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20-acer-a500-picasso.dts | 4 ++++
> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20-paz00.dts | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
In retrospect we should've just used "reg" in the first place rather
than adding the custom "nvidia,ram-code". It's a bit redundant to have
both of them with the same value. I wonder if we should deprecate the
use of "nvidia,ram-code" and at least make the code look at the "reg"
property first and only fall back to "nvidia,ram-code" if "reg" does
not exist. We probably won't ever be able to get rid of the fallback
for backwards-compatibility reasons, but at least that would make the
intent a bit clearer.
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists