Hi Lokesh,
On 10/11/2012 08:16 AM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
> + devicetree-discuss
>
> Hi Benoit,
>
> On Wednesday 10 October 2012 08:31 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 02:05 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>>> Device tree data for the EMIF sdram controllers in OMAP5
>>> and LPDDR2 memory devices attached to OMAP5 boards.
>>
>> Nit: Could you make a sentence with a verb to explain what you are doing
>> in this patch.
> I am really sorry about this.
> I ll make sure that all patch descriptions will be clear in V2 of this
> patch series.
>
> In this patch I am adding device tree data for LPDDR2 memory devices
> attached to omap5-sevm and also adding device tree data for EMIF sdram
> controllers in OMAP5.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@xxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/lpddr2_data.dtsi | 64
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-evm.dts | 11 +++++++
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi | 18 ++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpddr2_data.dtsi
>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpddr2_data.dtsi
>>> index f97f70f..8e8c1bc 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpddr2_data.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpddr2_data.dtsi
>>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
>>> */
>>>
>>> / {
>>> - elpida_ECB240ABACN: lpddr2 {
>>> + elpida_ECB240ABACN: lpddr2@0 {
>>> compatible = "Elpida,ECB240ABACN","jedec,lpddr2-s4";
>>> density = <2048>;
>>> io-width = <32>;
>>> @@ -64,4 +64,66 @@
>>> tDQSCK-max-derated = <6000>;
>>> };
>>> };
>>> +
>>> + samsung_K3PE0E000B: lpddr2@1 {
>>
>> I'm confused now, why are you reusing the same lpddr2_data.dtsi file?
>> You should create a file per memory. That will make the reuse much
>> easier.
>>
>> If the goal of your first patch was to do that, it is then the wrong
>> approach.
> Yes, I wanted to group data for all lppdr2 devices in a single file than
> creating separate file for each device.
> May be a dumb question, Why can't we group data for all the lpddr2
> devices in a single file?
Well, why should we do that? What will be the advantage?
That will increase the size of the DTS/DTB with data nobody will care if
only one type of memory is used on a given platform.
Going in the same direction you can consider adding every OMAP
description into a single DTS... Does that really make sense?
So clearly there is no point doing that, it will cluttered the OMAP4 DTB
with useless Samsung memory data. And the same issue for OMAP5 board
that will contain Elpida memory information. And it will get worst each
time someone will want to add a new memory in this file.
You should just include the data you need for a given board.
Regards,
Benoit
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
