On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 04:32:27PM -0700, risha...@codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2018-05-16 11:08, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting risha...@codeaurora.org (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.
Almost *every* node and driver is vendor specific. Please do as Stephen
suggested.
Rob
