From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 20:06:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150128200600.GR21293@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cbe949d7a69c3b16a3e9d6e5429eb81d3ae9d8b9.1422009157.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:14:50PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> +- opp-listN:
> + List of nodes defining performance points. Following belong to the nodes
> + within the opp-lists.
Why is there the N here? It doesn't correspond to the examples...
> + Required properties:
> + - opp-khz: Frequency in kHz
> + - opp-microvolt: voltage in micro Volts
I thought the goal here was to specify ranges?
> +- oppN:
> + Operating performance point node per device. Devices using it should have its
> + phandle in their "operating-points-v2" property.
> +
> + Required properties:
> + - compatible: allow OPPs to express their compatibility.
> + - opp-list: phandle to opp-list defined above.
I don't understand what that compatible property is intended to mean and
I expect other readers might be similarly confused - is it a standard
compatbile property meaning this noe corresponds to some sort of device?
There also appears to be no code matching these bindings...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150128/e6dd0d9e/attachment.sig>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-28 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-23 10:44 [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings Viresh Kumar
2015-01-23 10:46 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-01-23 11:39 ` Lucas Stach
2015-01-23 11:52 ` Mark Brown
2015-01-23 12:55 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-01-23 12:53 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-01-28 20:06 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2015-01-29 1:39 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-01-29 11:07 ` Mark Brown
2015-01-29 11:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-01-29 15:42 ` Rob Herring
2015-01-30 5:17 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-01-29 16:22 ` Rob Herring
2015-01-30 5:36 ` Viresh Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150128200600.GR21293@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox