From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966180AbeEJPTu (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2018 11:19:50 -0400 Received: from fllnx209.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.16]:20924 "EHLO fllnx209.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964827AbeEJPTs (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2018 11:19:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] ARM: dts: da850-evm: use phandles to extend nodes To: Adam Ford CC: Adam Ford , Kevin Hilman , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , arm-soc , devicetree , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20180507123721.9264-1-aford173@gmail.com> From: Sekhar Nori Message-ID: <7692ca00-3c9d-6e3e-12b6-f65d82f6fa95@ti.com> Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 20:49:17 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 10 May 2018 08:38 PM, Adam Ford wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:10 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> On Monday 07 May 2018 06:07 PM, Adam Ford wrote: >>> Many node labels in the device tree (like serial0, serial1, etc) are being >>> redefined, so let's modernize the device tree by using phandles to >>> extend the existing nodes. This helps reduce the whitespace. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford >> >> I applied this without the pmic changes. I am not convinced about those. >> The tps node is already being referred to as phandle. I am not sure >> referring to each individual regulator using phandle is needed. Other >> files like am335x-evm.dts don't do it as well. > > I tested the regulator values and names after booting to see if the > names and values matched the expected values. They did, so I am > fairly confident it would have worked. Not doubting that. But I am not sure if thats the "norm". Do you see any other device-tree file doing this? > >> >> Another thing is whether we really need the tp6507x.dtsi file. It does >> not seem to contain much and also da850-evm.dts is the only file >> including it. So it seems pretty pointless to me. > > Do you want me to do a patch that removes the tp6507x.dtsi file and > just sets up the > PMIC from scratch within the da850-evm file? I am fine with the plan, but not something urgent, IMO. > >> >> Here is what I committed. > > Thank you. I think looks cleaner this way, and more consistent with > many of the other platforms and boards. Yes. Thanks, Sekhar From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sekhar Nori Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] ARM: dts: da850-evm: use phandles to extend nodes Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 20:49:17 +0530 Message-ID: <7692ca00-3c9d-6e3e-12b6-f65d82f6fa95@ti.com> References: <20180507123721.9264-1-aford173@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Adam Ford Cc: Mark Rutland , devicetree , Kevin Hilman , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rob Herring , Adam Ford , arm-soc List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 10 May 2018 08:38 PM, Adam Ford wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:10 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> On Monday 07 May 2018 06:07 PM, Adam Ford wrote: >>> Many node labels in the device tree (like serial0, serial1, etc) are being >>> redefined, so let's modernize the device tree by using phandles to >>> extend the existing nodes. This helps reduce the whitespace. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford >> >> I applied this without the pmic changes. I am not convinced about those. >> The tps node is already being referred to as phandle. I am not sure >> referring to each individual regulator using phandle is needed. Other >> files like am335x-evm.dts don't do it as well. > > I tested the regulator values and names after booting to see if the > names and values matched the expected values. They did, so I am > fairly confident it would have worked. Not doubting that. But I am not sure if thats the "norm". Do you see any other device-tree file doing this? > >> >> Another thing is whether we really need the tp6507x.dtsi file. It does >> not seem to contain much and also da850-evm.dts is the only file >> including it. So it seems pretty pointless to me. > > Do you want me to do a patch that removes the tp6507x.dtsi file and > just sets up the > PMIC from scratch within the da850-evm file? I am fine with the plan, but not something urgent, IMO. > >> >> Here is what I committed. > > Thank you. I think looks cleaner this way, and more consistent with > many of the other platforms and boards. Yes. Thanks, Sekhar From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nsekhar@ti.com (Sekhar Nori) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 20:49:17 +0530 Subject: [PATCH V3] ARM: dts: da850-evm: use phandles to extend nodes In-Reply-To: References: <20180507123721.9264-1-aford173@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7692ca00-3c9d-6e3e-12b6-f65d82f6fa95@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday 10 May 2018 08:38 PM, Adam Ford wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:10 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> On Monday 07 May 2018 06:07 PM, Adam Ford wrote: >>> Many node labels in the device tree (like serial0, serial1, etc) are being >>> redefined, so let's modernize the device tree by using phandles to >>> extend the existing nodes. This helps reduce the whitespace. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford >> >> I applied this without the pmic changes. I am not convinced about those. >> The tps node is already being referred to as phandle. I am not sure >> referring to each individual regulator using phandle is needed. Other >> files like am335x-evm.dts don't do it as well. > > I tested the regulator values and names after booting to see if the > names and values matched the expected values. They did, so I am > fairly confident it would have worked. Not doubting that. But I am not sure if thats the "norm". Do you see any other device-tree file doing this? > >> >> Another thing is whether we really need the tp6507x.dtsi file. It does >> not seem to contain much and also da850-evm.dts is the only file >> including it. So it seems pretty pointless to me. > > Do you want me to do a patch that removes the tp6507x.dtsi file and > just sets up the > PMIC from scratch within the da850-evm file? I am fine with the plan, but not something urgent, IMO. > >> >> Here is what I committed. > > Thank you. I think looks cleaner this way, and more consistent with > many of the other platforms and boards. Yes. Thanks, Sekhar