[from the right account and without html formatting this time] On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Arun Kumar K <arun.kk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Exynos5800 is a derivative of Exynos5420 with higher > clock speeds and most other IP blocks remaining the same > except for a few. > Due to the similarities with 5420, following is done to > achieve maximum code re-use: > - Use the same 5420 clock file with few changes for adding > extra 5800 clocks. > - Re-use the 5420 dtsi by renaming it to exynos5-octa. Nack, this is a bad idea. You're not converting over 5410, which is also marketed as an exynos octa chip. There's definitely no guarantee that future octa-core chips will fit into this naming scheme either. Just call it 5422 like you did in the Chrome OS code base. It is after all the product name that is fused in as chip id on these parts, and all the other naming falls out much better from that. No more soc_is_5420 || soc_is_5800, since you can add a soc_is_542x. Etc. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
