On 11/30, Yixun Lan wrote:
> Hi Stephen
>
> On 11/30/17 03:35, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 11/28, Yixun Lan wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-axg.dtsi
> >> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-axg.dtsi
> >> index b932a784b02a..36a2e98338a8 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-axg.dtsi
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-axg.dtsi
> >> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
> >> #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
> >> #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
> >> #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
> >> +#include <dt-bindings/clock/axg-clkc.h>
> >>
> >> / {
> >> compatible = "amlogic,meson-axg";
> >> @@ -148,6 +149,20 @@
> >> #address-cells = <0>;
> >> };
> >>
> >> + hiubus: hiubus@ff63c000 {
> >
> > Maybe just call the node "bus@ff63c000"?
> >
> isn't this just a name? what's the benefits to change?
> personally, I tend to keep it this way, because it's better map to the
> data sheet
>
> we also has 'aobus', 'cbus' scattered there..
Per the ePAPR node names are supposed to be generic, like disk,
cpu, display-controller, gpu, etc. I've never heard of a hiubus,
so probably it's some vendor specific thing? We have the phandle
anyway so it's not like we're losing much information here.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
