From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:17:09 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v4 2/2] dt: power: st: Provide bindings for ST's OPPs
In-Reply-To: <20150728073439.GK21114@x1>
References: <1438010430-5802-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <1438010430-5802-2-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <20150728022936.GB1229@linux> <20150728073439.GK21114@x1>
Message-ID: <20150728074709.GA13710@linux>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 28-07-15, 08:34, Lee Jones wrote:
> I disagree.  For one, only 'opp-hz' is defined in ./opp.tx.  Secondly

There are other properties in op.txt like turbo, opp-suspend, latency,
etc.. which can be useful for your platform to. Its not used for now
is a different thing.

> it would be annoying to have to have to keep jumping between documents
> to obtain the whole picture.  Finally, generic bindings are repeated
> in platform/device specific documentation all the time.  Grep for
> 'clocks' or 'regulator-* or 'interrupts' or 'reg' or 'clock-frequency'

Yeah, I agree. I am not against that. What I meant to say was that its
an extension to opp-v2. So whatever is present in opp-v2 can be used
by ST's driver, without mentioning that here as well.

> (which IMHO I think you should have used instead of 'opp-hz', but
> that's by the by), or any number of other generic properties.

Hmm, probably yes. See I don't know everything :)

> > @Rob/Stephen: Please respond before it is late :)
> 
> No one knows this stuff better than you.  If you can't think of an
> already existing binding that could suit to portray our 'cuts' and
> 'substrate' information (with a similar way to support our "all cuts"
> and "all substrates" options, then there probably isn't one. ;)

Oh, I wasn't saying that there is an existing binding for supporting
your case. But if we want to move the cuts property to the generic
bindings so that others can use it. :)

-- 
viresh