On 2018-05-16 11:08, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting [email protected] (2018-05-16 10:33:14)
On 2018-05-16 10:03, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Rishabh Bhatnagar (2018-05-08 13:22:00)
>> +
>> +- max-slices:
>> + usage: required
>> + Value Type: <u32>
>> + Definition: Number of cache slices supported by hardware
>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>> + llcc: qcom,llcc@1100000 {
>
> cache-controller@1100000 ?
>
We have tried to use consistent naming convention as in llcc_*
everywhere.
Using cache-controller will mix and match the naming convention. Also
in
the documentation it is explained what llcc is and its full form.
DT prefers standard node names as opposed to vendor specific node
names.
Isn't it a cache controller? I fail to see why this can't be done.
Hi Stephen,
The driver is vendor specific and also for uniformity purposes we
preferred
to go with this name.
