Quoting mkrishn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2021-02-09 02:53:41)
> On 2021-02-06 04:04, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> + - interrupts
> >> + - clocks
> >> + - clock-names
> >> + - phys
> >> + - phy-names
> >> + - ports
> >> +
> >> +unevaluatedProperties: false
> >> +
> >> +examples:
> >> + - |
> >> + #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
> >> + #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sdm845.h>
> >> + #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sdm845.h>
> >> +
> >> + soc {
> >> + #address-cells = <2>;
> >> + #size-cells = <2>;
> >
> > The soc node can be left out.
> Should I follow the same approach that you suggested in DP yaml patch
> here also ?
> ie. soc {
> #address-cells = <2>;
> #size-cells = <2>;
>
> dsi@ae9400000{
> ...
> }
> }
Yes.
> Link :
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/1612420939-15502-4-git-send-email-mkrishn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> Comment:
> Please look at section "2.2.2 Generic Names Recommendation"
> of the DT
> spec[1] to find a proper name. I don't see 'subsystem' there
> but that
> may be because it shouldn't really exist as a node. Instead
> we should
> have the child nodes sit directly under the SoC node.
