[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpohKcE+nVgvjktqzLaL38VQxBWD9w_bdgsZ+7_vzSQwLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 01:02:57 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...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 Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 13:13, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> 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".
Ack, thanks for the explanation.
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists