On 26/03/2023 12:03, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 12:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 26/03/2023 11:21, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> The soc node is supposed to have only device nodes with MMIO addresses, >>>> so move the DSI OPP out of it (it is used also by second DSI1 on >>>> SDM660): >>> >>> This raises a question: would it make sense to add /opps to handle all >>> opp tables? >> >> We didn't add it to any other cases like this (and we already fixed all >> other boards), so why now? We can but it is a bit late for it. > > Because nobody expressed this idea beforehand? I'm not insisting here, > you have a better understanding of DT. Just wondering if it makes > sense. It will not change much of ordering - all nodes will be close to each other anyway (opp-table-XYZ), thus is rather a matter of readability and subjective preference. No other platforms have "opps" or "opp-tables". Best regards, Krzysztof
