From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nm@ti.com (Nishanth Menon) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 08:34:02 -0500 Subject: [PATCH V7 1/3] OPP: Add new bindings to address shortcomings of existing bindings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <558025CA.8050008@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 06/04/2015 11:20 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Current OPP (Operating performance point) device tree bindings have been > insufficient due to the inflexible nature of the original bindings. Over > time, we have realized that Operating Performance Point definitions and > usage is varied depending on the SoC and a "single size (just frequency, > voltage) fits all" model which the original bindings attempted and > failed. > > The proposed next generation of the bindings addresses by providing a > expandable binding for OPPs and introduces the following common > shortcomings seen with the original bindings: > > - Getting clock/voltage/current rails sharing information between CPUs. > Shared by all cores vs independent clock per core vs shared clock per > cluster. > > - Support for specifying current levels along with voltages. > > - Support for multiple regulators. > > - Support for turbo modes. > > - Other per OPP settings: transition latencies, disabled status, etc.? > > - Expandability of OPPs in future. > > This patch introduces new bindings "operating-points-v2" to get these problems > solved. Refer to the bindings for more details. > > We now have multiple versions of OPP binding and only one of them should > be used per device. > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar I thought I had acked the patch 1 of the series as well in the list, but looks like I have'nt.. So, for the record.. Acked-by: Nishanth Menon Thanks for doing this. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon