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 _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
