Quoting rishabhb at codeaurora.org (2018-05-16 10:33:14)

On 2018-05-16 10:03, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

Quoting Rishabh Bhatnagar (2018-05-08 13:22:00)

quoted

quoted

+
+- max-slices:
+       usage: required
+       Value Type: <u32>
+       Definition: Number of cache slices supported by hardware
+
+Example:
+
+       llcc: qcom,llcc at 1100000 {

cache-controller at 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.