On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 13:13, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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". Ack, thanks for the explanation. Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> -- With best wishes Dmitry
