[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFBinCAvT6-gfZQH--AVJAxiVM9bv5=agYzJ-u3NZUGFvp2vZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 18:29:58 +0100
From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
To: xianwei.zhao@...ogic.com
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: add support for A4 based Amlogic BA400
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:19 AM Xianwei Zhao via B4 Relay
<devnull+xianwei.zhao.amlogic.com@...nel.org> wrote:
[...]
> + apb@...00000 {
Node names need to be generic - since this is a bug it needs to be:
bus@...00000 {
Or if you want to make it clear how this bus is called then you can use:
apb: bus@...00000 {
The same comment applies to the amlogic-a5.dtsi patch (4/4).
And while here, I fully agree with Jerome: having a bit more details
would be great so we can judge on whether a common .dtsi makes sense.
For this it would be helpful to know how many IP blocks those two SoCs
have in common and how many are different.
Best regards,
Martin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists