On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:42:40AM +0000, André Przywara wrote:
> > +&ccu {
> > + compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3-ccu";
> > +};
>
> I believe this kind of sharing nodes is a bit frowned upon in connection
> with sharing .dtsi's. If the compatible name differs, I think it
> deserves to be a separate node spelt out in each SoC's .dtsi.
> This also makes the DT more readable, since a reader doesn't have to
> refer to two files to see what's in that node.
>
> >
> > - codec_analog: codec-analog@01f015c0 {
> > - compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3-codec-analog";
> > - reg = <0x01f015c0 0x4>;
> > - };
> > +&mmc0 {
> > + compatible = "allwinner,sun7i-a20-mmc";
> > + clocks = <&ccu CLK_BUS_MMC0>,
> > + <&ccu CLK_MMC0>,
> > + <&ccu CLK_MMC0_OUTPUT>,
> > + <&ccu CLK_MMC0_SAMPLE>;
> > + clock-names = "ahb",
> > + "mmc",
> > + "output",
> > + "sample";
>
> This applies even more here, since the MMC controllers also have
> different clock requirements.
>
> So why can't we just leave the CCU, MMC and possibly the pinctrl nodes
> completely out of the shared h3-h5.dtsi and introduce them from scratch
> in the SoC specific .dtsi?
>
> I think we still have enough identical nodes to justify this kind of
> .dtsi sharing.
We did it that way in the past in order to reduce the unneeded
duplication, but I can definitely understand your point. We'll wait
for the DT maintainers answer on this one.
Thanks,
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
