From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 10:35:59 +0530 Subject: [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings In-Reply-To: <555224A2.7000308@ti.com> References: <554FFFA3.1060801@ti.com> <20150512051633.GB32300@linux> <555224A2.7000308@ti.com> Message-ID: <20150513050559.GE28858@linux> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 12-05-15, 11:04, Nishanth Menon wrote: > Just curious -> is'nt it better to just have min<->max range? binding > as it stands right now is open to interpretation as to what will be > attempted and in what sequence? with a valid min, target or max - > is'nt it more power efficient always to go for a "min" than a target? > > Further, min<->max implies anywhere in that range and is more > consistent with "regulator like" description. It came out after some discussions on the list, you may want to go through that. https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-kernel/2015-January/019844.html > True. one option might be to allow for vendor specific property > extensions - that will let vendors add in additional quirky data > custom to their SoCs as needed. Yeah, I am planning to support them. -- viresh