From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt: cpufreq: st: Provide bindings for ST's CPUFreq implementation Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:20:27 +0530 Message-ID: <20150728075027.GB13710@linux> References: <1438010430-5802-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20150728022308.GA1229@linux> <20150728074104.GL21114@x1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150728074104.GL21114@x1> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lee Jones , rob.herring@linaro.org Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@stlinux.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, ajitpal.singh@st.com, sre@kernel.org, dbaryshkov@gmail.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Cc'ing Rob as well.. On 28-07-15, 08:41, Lee Jones wrote: > I have two issues with that. Firstly, although the driver uses the > OPP API (it also uses the Regulator and Clock API too), it is > fundamentally a CPUFreq driver, so I think it should have a CPUFreq > DT entry. Secondly, if someone doesn't know the history of the > ST CPUFreq set, they will look here for an accompanying document. I > personally wouldn't think to look in power/*opp* for a CPUFreq > binding. > > Perhaps, as all of the CPUFreq drivers use the OPP API, everything > should be moved to drivers/base/power or drivers/power? Okay, looks fine :) -- viresh