From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: Move syscon reboot/poweroff to common dtsi for Exynos Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:04:34 +0900 Message-ID: <56C25982.4020301@samsung.com> References: <1455042606-10075-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <56C02265.40103@samsung.com> <56C1D4D1.2050108@osg.samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout2.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.12]:46457 "EHLO mailout2.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753355AbcBOXEk (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:04:40 -0500 In-reply-to: <56C1D4D1.2050108@osg.samsung.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Javier Martinez Canillas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: k.kozlowski.k@gmail.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Andi Shyti , Alim Akhtar , Kukjin Kim , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 15.02.2016 22:38, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> >> In some of the DTSI this was under "soc" node, not at top-level. >> Unfortunately we do not have consistency here - some DTSI have "soc", > > Yes, I noticed this but as you said not all DTSI have a soc node > and that's why I made it top level in the DTSI. > >> some not. Anyway I think we should move to "soc" version. >> > > Not sure I'm following, did you mean to do it as a follow up or > to add a soc node for the missing DTSI as a part of this series? I meant to send a v2 with this under "soc" node even though on some DTS we do not have the "soc". Optional follow up would be to make DTS consistent and move nodes under "soc"... but that would be also a lot of churn. Best regards, Krzysztof From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: k.kozlowski@samsung.com (Krzysztof Kozlowski) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:04:34 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: dts: Move syscon reboot/poweroff to common dtsi for Exynos In-Reply-To: <56C1D4D1.2050108@osg.samsung.com> References: <1455042606-10075-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <56C02265.40103@samsung.com> <56C1D4D1.2050108@osg.samsung.com> Message-ID: <56C25982.4020301@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 15.02.2016 22:38, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> >> In some of the DTSI this was under "soc" node, not at top-level. >> Unfortunately we do not have consistency here - some DTSI have "soc", > > Yes, I noticed this but as you said not all DTSI have a soc node > and that's why I made it top level in the DTSI. > >> some not. Anyway I think we should move to "soc" version. >> > > Not sure I'm following, did you mean to do it as a follow up or > to add a soc node for the missing DTSI as a part of this series? I meant to send a v2 with this under "soc" node even though on some DTS we do not have the "soc". Optional follow up would be to make DTS consistent and move nodes under "soc"... but that would be also a lot of churn. Best regards, Krzysztof