From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM: dts: qcom: Add initial IFC6540 board device tree Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 18:00:34 +0200 Message-ID: <5409DE22.3070506@suse.de> References: <1409763031-16873-1-git-send-email-gdjakov@mm-sol.com> <5409C803.8060007@suse.de> <070D3E01-139E-4EC2-928F-31B8CA5E1BD7@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <070D3E01-139E-4EC2-928F-31B8CA5E1BD7@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kumar Gala Cc: Georgi Djakov , robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, iivanov@mm-sol.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Am 05.09.2014 17:20, schrieb Kumar Gala: > On Sep 5, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Andreas F=E4rber wrote= : >> Am 03.09.2014 18:50, schrieb Georgi Djakov: >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8084.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dt= s/qcom-apq8084.dtsi >>> index 21d01e5..1f130bc 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8084.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8084.dtsi >>> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ >>> #include "skeleton.dtsi" >>> >>> #include >>> +#include >>> >>> / { >>> model =3D "Qualcomm APQ 8084"; >>> @@ -203,5 +204,27 @@ >>> clock-names =3D "core", "iface"; >>> status =3D "disabled"; >>> }; >>> + >>> + sdhci@f9824900 { >>> + compatible =3D "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4"; >>> + reg =3D <0xf9824900 0x11c>, <0xf9824000 0x800>; >>> + reg-names =3D "hc_mem", "core_mem"; >>> + interrupts =3D <0 123 0>, <0 138 0>; >> >> I see that you've used GPIO_ACTIVE_* above. Is the trailing zero her= e >> possibly IRQ_TYPE_NONE? >> >>> + interrupt-names =3D "hc_irq", "pwr_irq"; >>> + clocks =3D <&gcc GCC_SDCC1_APPS_CLK>, <&gcc GCC_SDCC1_AHB_CLK>; >>> + clock-names =3D "core", "iface"; >>> + status =3D "disabled"; >>> + }; >>> + >>> + sdhci@f98a4900 { >>> + compatible =3D "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4"; >>> + reg =3D <0xf98a4900 0x11c>, <0xf98a4000 0x800>; >>> + reg-names =3D "hc_mem", "core_mem"; >>> + interrupts =3D <0 125 0>, <0 221 0>; >>> + interrupt-names =3D "hc_irq", "pwr_irq"; >>> + clocks =3D <&gcc GCC_SDCC2_APPS_CLK>, <&gcc GCC_SDCC2_AHB_CLK>; >>> + clock-names =3D "core", "iface"; >>> + status =3D "disabled"; >>> + }; >> >> If you assign labels to these two nodes, you can reference them in t= he >> .dts as &labelname {...};. Same for the uart node. That avoids >> duplicating the hierarchy, detects spelling mistakes at compile time= and >> reduces indentation. Cf. the recent ifc6410 patch. >=20 > Got no issues with introducing the labels, but I=92d like to keep the= hierarchy in the .dts file. Any explanation why? The Samsung guys have been very strict to adopt this new style, with inherited nodes sorted alphabetically after / {};, and the ifc6540 is a new .dts we could apply the new pattern to. But if you don't reference the node anywhere, there's no real benefit t= o adding a label in the first place. It can still be done once needed. Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=FCrn= berg