Hi Nishanth,
On 06:06-20240731, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 09:49-20240731, Manorit Chawdhry wrote:
> > > > + */
> > > > +
> > > > +#include "k3-j784s4.dtsi"
> > > > +
> > > > +/ {
> > > > + model = "Texas Instruments K3 J742S2 SoC";
> > > > + compatible = "ti,j742s2";
> > > > +
> > > > + cpus {
> > > > + cpu-map {
> > > > + /delete-node/ cluster1;
> > > > + };
> > > > + };
> > > > +
> > > > + /delete-node/ cpu4;
> > > > + /delete-node/ cpu5;
> > > > + /delete-node/ cpu6;
> > > > + /delete-node/ cpu7;
> > >
> > > I suggest refactoring by renaming the dtsi files as common and split out
> > > j784s4 similar to j722s/am62p rather than using /delete-node/
> > >
> >
> > I don't mind the suggestion Nishanth if there is a reason behind it.
> > Could you tell why we should not be using /delete-node/?
> >
>
> Maintenance, readability and sustenance are the reasons. This is a
> optimized die. It will end up having it's own changes in property
> and integration details. While reuse is necessary, modifying the
> properties with overrides and /delete-nodes/ creates maintenance
> challenges down the road. We already went down this road with am62p
> reuse with j722s, and eventually determined split and reuse is the
> best option. See [1] for additional guidance.
>
>
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst#n189
Thank you for giving some reasoning, would do the needful!
Regards,
Manorit
>
> --
> Regards,
> Nishanth Menon
> Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D
