From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:43385 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751221Ab3HTQGm convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 12:06:42 -0400 Message-ID: <52139425.1000709@arm.com> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:07:01 +0100 From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: add support to specify phandle of another node for OPP References: <51F8F17B.1020304@arm.com> <51F9234A.6010501@ti.com> <20130731152925.GP29859@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <51F9341E.60102@ti.com> <20130731161103.GS29859@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <51F93AFB.1030104@ti.com> <20130801135422.GA8095@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <51FA8BE2.9000309@ti.com> <20130802131541.GN2884@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130806134534.GB6603@kahuna> <20130807161722.GJ28558@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <52133E26.1000801@arm.com> <5213769D.9020804@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <5213769D.9020804@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nishanth Menon Cc: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha , Mark Rutland , Stephen Warren , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , Pawel Moll , "Rafael J. Wysocki" List-ID: On 20/08/13 15:01, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 08/20/2013 05:00 AM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: [...] >> Until we get more feedback and agreement on new proposal can we have >> this simple amendment in this patch to the existing binding ? Since the >> new proposal[1] is backward compatible(this patch adding support for >> option#5 to existing option#1), we will have to add support for other >> binding options in [1] later. >> >> This is needed to support shared OPPs with simple/single OPP profile >> and also to fix the broken and unused binding >> @Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/arm_big_little_dt.txt >> >> Regards, >> Sudeep >> >> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg06563.html > > > Could you post a non-RFC version of this series? As I had mentioned > earlier in the thread, I dont mind having this pulled in as stage 1 of > the transition to a more elaborate solution. > Thanks Nishanth. I would wait till Mark and Stephen agree for this approach. Regards, Sudeep