From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:13:17 -0600 Message-ID: References: <2d52388bd7d3cc546ac3ab5afeb47bfcb3012213.1446167359.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20151030221826.GM19782@codeaurora.org> <20151031022003.GV3716@ubuntu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151031022003.GV3716@ubuntu> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Stephen Boyd , Rafael Wysocki , Lee Jones , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Mark Rutland , Pawel Moll , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Nishanth Menon , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , open list , "Rafael J. Wysocki" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the >> node name be: >> >> opp@600000000 { > > I thought the @... had a special meaning and we might end up creating > some device for the node then? Perhaps I am mistaken. There is no special meaning, just convention which is the unit-address should match the reg property address. I'm okay with an exception here. Rob