From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 10:35:59 +0530 Message-ID: <20150513050559.GE28858@linux> References: <554FFFA3.1060801@ti.com> <20150512051633.GB32300@linux> <555224A2.7000308@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <555224A2.7000308@ti.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: broonie@kernel.org, Nishanth Menon Cc: Rafael Wysocki , rob.herring@linaro.org, arnd.bergmann@linaro.org, mike.turquette@linaro.org, sboyd@codeaurora.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, grant.likely@linaro.org, olof@lixom.net, Sudeep.Holla@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, viswanath.puttagunta@linaro.org, l.stach@pengutronix.de, thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ta.omasab@gmail.com, kesavan.abhilash@gmail.com, khilman@linaro.org, santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.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