Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230326091605.18908-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
 <CAA8EJpqR-QisyWEHE83oFbXt8wUcn2Ofd4W6UwFmkYzGD18N9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <c6429b89-bdf1-a601-7cc2-a6cbb566fecd@linaro.org> <CAA8EJppPHVZbseXFx8g+m9PxgODuenLEBHeDT3z6MojzVALKqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <83b657c3-5a78-1c81-fea5-5679a30bd517@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <83b657c3-5a78-1c81-fea5-5679a30bd517@linaro.org>
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 01:02:57 +0300
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpohKcE+nVgvjktqzLaL38VQxBWD9w_bdgsZ+7_vzSQwLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm630: move DSI opp-table out of
 soc node
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 13:13, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 26/03/2023 12:03, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 12:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 26/03/2023 11:21, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> 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@linaro.org>


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry