From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 14:18:55 -0700 Subject: [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings In-Reply-To: <20150507110233.GR15510@sirena.org.uk> References: <20150504121209.GM15510@sirena.org.uk> <20150505105714.GA22845@sirena.org.uk> <20150505171252.GI22845@sirena.org.uk> <20150507055231.GB32399@codeaurora.org> <20150507110233.GR15510@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <20150507211855.GA2455@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 05/07, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:52:31PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > If you look at the cpufreq/clock/pmic code on our codeaurora.org > > tree you'll see that it's used to pass a value with uA units > > through the regulator_set_optimum_mode() API. The call to > > regulator_set_optimum_mode() is here[1], and the place where we > > parse the OPP table from DT is here[2]. My understanding is that > > I'm not looking for anyone to explain this to me in e-mail, what I'm > looking for is for the binding document to be clear so someone can tell > what the binding means by reading the documentation for the binding. Ok. Perhaps the simplest thing to do then is to reuse wording from the regulator_set_load() API documentation? That's the only usage of this value I'm aware of. Something like: The current load of the device when using this OPP. Used to set the most efficient regulator operating mode. We don't need any sort of min/max for this property either, so a single value should be all that's required. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project