[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <83b657c3-5a78-1c81-fea5-5679a30bd517@linaro.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2023 12:13:10 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm630: move DSI opp-table out of
soc node
On 26/03/2023 12:03, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 12:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 26/03/2023 11:21, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The soc node is supposed to have only device nodes with MMIO addresses,
>>>> so move the DSI OPP out of it (it is used also by second DSI1 on
>>>> SDM660):
>>>
>>> This raises a question: would it make sense to add /opps to handle all
>>> opp tables?
>>
>> We didn't add it to any other cases like this (and we already fixed all
>> other boards), so why now? We can but it is a bit late for it.
>
> Because nobody expressed this idea beforehand? I'm not insisting here,
> you have a better understanding of DT. Just wondering if it makes
> sense.
It will not change much of ordering - all nodes will be close to each
other anyway (opp-table-XYZ), thus is rather a matter of readability and
subjective preference. No other platforms have "opps" or "opp-tables".
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists