From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] ARM: dts: OMAP36xx: move CPU OPP tables to device tree Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:58:43 -0500 Message-ID: <51433723.20107@ti.com> References: <1363294695-658-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1363294695-658-3-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <514244B4.9050808@ti.com> <20130315135655.GA2939@kahuna> <51432F94.7000306@ti.com> <20130315143806.GA3103@kahuna> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130315143806.GA3103@kahuna> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nishanth Menon Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Hilman , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt_Cousson?= , Santosh Shilimkar , Shawn Guo , Keerthy , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 03/15/2013 09:38 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 09:26-20130315, Jon Hunter wrote: >> >> On 03/15/2013 08:56 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>> On 16:44-20130314, Jon Hunter wrote: >>>> >>>> On 03/14/2013 03:58 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>>>> Add DT OPP table for OMAP36xx family of devices. This data is >>>>> decoded by OF with of_init_opp_table() helper function. This >>>>> overrides the default OMAP34xx CPU OPP table definition. >>>> >>>> Not sure I following the last sentence. The tables are in a different >>>> dtsi file and only the relevant file should be included, right? >>> omap3630.dsi includes omap3.dtsi (which is meant for OMAP34xx). >>> The opp tables introduced by this patch in omap36xx.dtsi will override >>> the ones defined on omap3.dtsi. Will the following rephrase help clarify >>> this? >>> >>> Original: >>> This overrides the default OMAP34xx CPU OPP table definition. >>> Suggested; >>> This overrides the default OMAP34xx CPU OPP table definition in >>> omap3.dtsi. >> >> Sorry, I just missed that the omap3430 opps were in omap3.dtsi and not >> omap34xx.dtsi. I guess I am not familiar with how the DTC overrides >> nodes, however, at least from a readability standpoint it would seem >> nice to have the omap3430 opps in a omap3430 specific dtsi and not >> omap3.dtsi. However, thats just my opinion. > most of omap3630 is based off omap3430. I know from an readability point > of view, it might have been good to split that to omap3-common.dtsi, > omap34xx.dtsi, omap36xx.dtsi etc.. But there is no real need at this > point in time to do that. Unless, ofcourse, we'd like to set that up as > an standard for all OMAP SoCs... How would omap3-common.dtsi be any different from omap3.dtsi? I don't wish us to go nuts with creating dtsi files either, but having an omap3430.dtsi does not seem unreasonable to me, but that is just my opinion. Jon