From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nm@ti.com (Nishanth Menon) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 10:00:41 -0500 Subject: [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings In-Reply-To: <20150513050559.GE28858@linux> References: <554FFFA3.1060801@ti.com> <20150512051633.GB32300@linux> <555224A2.7000308@ti.com> <20150513050559.GE28858@linux> Message-ID: <55536719.5050208@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 05/13/2015 12:05 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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 I see the thread saying that voltage-tolerance is a crappy idea -> I agree to that. What I dont see in the thread, and the point I raised here, why have nominal/typical voltage at all? min<->max should be sufficient, correct? If the device cannot function at min, then it should not be documented as part of valid range at all. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon