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: Fri, 15 May 2015 19:45:25 +0530 Message-ID: <20150515141525.GK6348@linux> References: <20150512214224.16410.15922@quantum> <20150513085528.GA6994@linux> <20150513110357.GD3066@sirena.org.uk> <20150514003201.20636.83883@quantum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Turquette Cc: Mark Brown , Rafael Wysocki , rob.herring@linaro.org, arnd.bergmann@linaro.org, nm@ti.com, 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 14-05-15, 03:25, Michael Turquette wrote: > No, we don't understand the problem space well enough to form an ABI. And why do you think so? We have been facing many problems since a long time which we are trying to solve here. I agree that it might not be right to try too many things which may not be required later, but most of the things we have now in new bindings are actually required. > Putting this stuff in C without any philosophical constraints on whether > or not we can change it later is the way to go. I don't agree to that :) -- viresh