Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1307414 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: apq8016-sbc: move sdhci node under soc node

Started bySrinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
First post2016-01-12 14:50 +0100
Last post2016-01-12 23:30 +0100
Articles 5 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: apq8016-sbc: move sdhci node under soc node Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> - 2016-01-12 14:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: apq8016-sbc: move sdhci node under soc node Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-01-12 15:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: apq8016-sbc: move sdhci node under soc  node Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> - 2016-01-12 15:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: apq8016-sbc: move sdhci node under soc node Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-01-12 16:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: apq8016-sbc: move sdhci node under soc  node Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> - 2016-01-12 23:30 +0100

#1307414 — [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: apq8016-sbc: move sdhci node under soc node

FromSrinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Date2016-01-12 14:50 +0100
Subject[PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: apq8016-sbc: move sdhci node under soc node
Message-ID<qQ7uH-1zT-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
To be consistent with other nodes move sdhci node under the soc node,
rather than using lable references.

Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8016-sbc.dtsi | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8016-sbc.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8016-sbc.dtsi
index f6cd323..b635149 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8016-sbc.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8016-sbc.dtsi
@@ -268,9 +268,9 @@
 				default-state = "off";
 			};
 		};
-	};
-};
 
-&sdhc_1 {
-	status = "okay";
+		sdhci@07824000 {
+			status = "okay";
+		};
+	};
 };
-- 
1.9.1

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1307431

FromArnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date2016-01-12 15:10 +0100
Message-ID<qQ7O1-1Z5-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1307414
On Tuesday 12 January 2016 13:46:52 Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> To be consistent with other nodes move sdhci node under the soc node,
> rather than using lable references.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
> 

Maybe remove the label as well if you are no longer using it?

	Arnd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1307451 — Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: apq8016-sbc: move sdhci node under soc node

FromSrinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Date2016-01-12 15:20 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: apq8016-sbc: move sdhci node under soc node
Message-ID<qQ7XI-23e-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1307431

On 12/01/16 14:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 January 2016 13:46:52 Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>> To be consistent with other nodes move sdhci node under the soc node,
>> rather than using lable references.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
>>
>
> Maybe remove the label as well if you are no longer using it?
Label "sdhc_1" in this case is used in aliases node.

>
My understanding so far was qcom specific dt want to use hierarchical dt 
nodes in the board files, but this brings the question of should we 
delete all the unused labels.

IMO, some unused labels are harmless and would give more consistency to 
the reader, removing them might not add great value.

Andy/Stephen, any comments?


--srini

> 	Arnd
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1307504

FromArnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date2016-01-12 16:00 +0100
Message-ID<qQ8Aq-2pr-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1307451
On Tuesday 12 January 2016 14:18:53 Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> On 12/01/16 14:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 January 2016 13:46:52 Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> >> To be consistent with other nodes move sdhci node under the soc node,
> >> rather than using lable references.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
> >>
> >
> > Maybe remove the label as well if you are no longer using it?
> Label "sdhc_1" in this case is used in aliases node.
> 

Ok, nevermind then.

> My understanding so far was qcom specific dt want to use hierarchical dt 
> nodes in the board files, but this brings the question of should we 
> delete all the unused labels.
> 
> IMO, some unused labels are harmless and would give more consistency to 
> the reader, removing them might not add great value.

Fair enough.

	Arnd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1307890 — Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: apq8016-sbc: move sdhci node under soc node

FromAndy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>
Date2016-01-12 23:30 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: apq8016-sbc: move sdhci node under soc node
Message-ID<qQfBU-7kg-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1307451
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:18:53PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/01/16 14:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >On Tuesday 12 January 2016 13:46:52 Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> >>To be consistent with other nodes move sdhci node under the soc node,
> >>rather than using lable references.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
> >>
> >
> >Maybe remove the label as well if you are no longer using it?
> Label "sdhc_1" in this case is used in aliases node.
> 
> >
> My understanding so far was qcom specific dt want to use hierarchical dt
> nodes in the board files, but this brings the question of should we delete
> all the unused labels.
> 
> IMO, some unused labels are harmless and would give more consistency to the
> reader, removing them might not add great value.
> 
> Andy/Stephen, any comments?

I tend to lean towards leaving the labels in.  But at the same time we don't
want to get cluttered with unused labels.  That said, perhaps If the label
makes things more understandable, then leave them in.  Otherwise, they really
have no use.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web