From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: Juno: Split juno.dts into juno-base.dtsi and juno.dts. Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 10:35:42 +0100 Message-ID: <1431596142.2881.13.camel@linaro.org> References: <1431537092-19597-1-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <1431537092-19597-3-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1431537092-19597-3-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Liviu Dudau Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Marc Zyngier , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Sudeep Holla , devicetree , LAKML , LKML List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 18:11 +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote: > Prepare the device tree for adding more boards based on Juno r0. > > Signed-off-by: Liviu Dudau > --- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno-base.dtsi | 125 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno.dts | 122 +------------------------------- What criteria were used to select the contents of juno-base.dtsi? >>From what I can see, the stuff left out of base is still the same for r0 and r1 (cpu, pmu, memory, psci!). And so juno-r1.dts could just be ------------------------------------------------------------------------- #include "juno.dts" / { model = "ARM Juno development board (r1)"; }; &memtimer { status = "okay"; }; ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, it's a bit hacky, but avoids duplication of source code. I can only assume there are come non-public differences between r0 and r1? -- Tixy