From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nm@ti.com (Nishanth Menon) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 01:04:07 -0500 Subject: [PATCH V5 3/3] OPP: Add binding for 'opp-suspend' In-Reply-To: <20150521054935.GG22904@linux> References: <618b02107af650bcb3246e165095bbca207d511a.1432091956.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <555D6DD3.7000404@ti.com> <20150521054935.GG22904@linux> Message-ID: <555D7557.6060501@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 05/21/2015 12:49 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 21-05-15, 00:32, Nishanth Menon wrote: >> Why not just mark it as a property of an OPP rather than a phandle? just >> thinking that this might setup a precedence for future needs like >> "shutdown OPP" or "Reboot OPP" or something different that some other >> SoC might have.. > > AFAIU, a property should be present in the OPP if and only if any OPP > can set it. But in this case, only one OPP from the entire list can > set it. So, its more a property of the list rather than every OPP > within it. And then there wouldn't be any need to code that would > check bugs in dtbs where multiple OPPs have it set. > True.. fair enough. Acked-by: Nishanth Menon -- Regards, Nishanth Menon