On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 07:21:35PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 08/12/2014 06:58 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 06:44:23PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >> The tps65090 is a Power Management Unit (PMU) used in several
> >> boards so the same information is described on different DTS.
> >> It is better to create a .dtsi fragment that can be included.
> > Why is it better to do this?
> Is better IMHO because we have a single place where the tps65090 information can
> be updated instead of duplicating the same definition on each DTS.
But there is no real information in this file.
> This appears to be the current trend to better manage shared DTS snippet across
> different boards. Others examples are arch/arm/boot/dts/omap-gpmc-smsc911x.dtsi
> and arch/arm/boot/dts/twl6030.dtsi.
In the smsc911x case that's a block from a reference design that's
commonly repeated over multiple systems and is therefore similar to the
reference design elements that have been factored out for Chromebooks.
The twl6030 fragment is just broken - the regulator section is actively
harmful and should be removed.
>
> >> + regulators {
> >> + tps65090_dcdc1: dcdc1 {
> >> + };
> >> +
> >
> > It appears to be largely content free, exactly the same effect should be
> > achieved by removing the entire regulators node.
> >
>
> Yes it's content free but later "[PATCH 6/6] ARM: dts: Add tps65090 FETs
> constraints" [0] fills the FETs constraints [0]. This is a preparatory patch.
>
> Also, having all the regulators allows DTS files to reference the node by the
> label if they want to add other properties. I can squash this patch and 06/06 if
> you think that is better but I thought that the split makes it easier to review.
>
> Best regards,
> Javier
>
> [0]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/12/377
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
