From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752171AbbLKFlx (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:41:53 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.220.52]:35328 "EHLO mail-pa0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751964AbbLKFlZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:41:25 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:11:19 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas , Rob Herring , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Thomas Abraham , Sylwester Nawrocki , Mike Turquette , Kukjin Kim , Kukjin Kim , Ben Gamari , Tomasz Figa , Lukasz Majewski , Heiko Stuebner , Chanwoo Choi , Kevin Hilman , Tobias Jakobi , Anand Moon , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Doug Anderson , Andreas Faerber Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/7] ARM: dts: Exynos542x/5800: add CPU OPP properties Message-ID: <20151211054119.GS3612@ubuntu> References: <1449766729-435-4-git-send-email-b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> <20151211031646.GL3612@ubuntu> <566A4231.9050608@osg.samsung.com> <20151211033253.GN3612@ubuntu> <566A4A60.8060402@samsung.com> <20151211041349.GO3612@ubuntu> <566A4E82.3040203@samsung.com> <20151211043802.GP3612@ubuntu> <566A56DF.5040001@osg.samsung.com> <566A5F0B.8040609@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <566A5F0B.8040609@samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11-12-15, 14:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Actually I think there is no nice way of making this as separate paths. > As Javier's mentioned, there aren't many differences. Currently the CPU > ordering is the only difference in DT. > > Making it as separate path would create hierarchy like: > - exynos5420-based-board.dts > \- include: exynos5420.dtsi > \- include: exynos5.dtsi > \- include: exynos5420-cpu.dtsi (the cpus are not in exynos5420.dtsi) > > - exynos5422-based-board.dts > \- include: exynos5420.dtsi > \- include: exynos5.dtsi > \- include: exynos5422-cpu.dtsi (the cpus are not in exynos5420.dtsi) > > which of course is okay... except we keep the definition of CPUs > completely outside of main Exynos5420 DTSI. Then we have to include both > DTSI for each new DTS. So what? There isn't anything wrong in this case and is just the right thing to do, IMHO. We have just kept the CPU devices separately, simple. -- viresh