On Fri, 2017-12-01 at 08:34 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:

On 11/30, Yixun Lan wrote:

quoted

Hi Stephen

On 11/30/17 03:35, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

On 11/28, Yixun Lan wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-axg.dtsi

b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-axg.dtsi
index b932a784b02a..36a2e98338a8 100644

--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-axg.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-axg.dtsi

@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
 #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
 #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
 #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
+#include <dt-bindings/clock/axg-clkc.h>
 
 / {
 	compatible = "amlogic,meson-axg";

@@ -148,6 +149,20 @@
 			#address-cells = <0>;
 		};
 
+		hiubus: hiubus at ff63c000 {

Maybe just call the node "bus at ff63c000"?

isn't this just a name? what's the benefits to change?
personally, I tend to keep it this way, because it's better map to the
data sheet

we also has 'aobus', 'cbus' scattered there..

Per the ePAPR node names are supposed to be generic, like disk,
cpu, display-controller, gpu, etc. I've never heard of a hiubus,
so probably it's some vendor specific thing? We have the phandle
anyway so it's not like we're losing much information here.

Stephen, there is a lot of busses on platform. We can't just call them all
'bus'.
I don't get the problem with this name.
We are re-using the name from the datasheet here, no fancy invention. It seems
to be quite common.