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.
