From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] PM / OPP: extend DT binding to specify phandle of another node for OPP Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 09:29:23 -0500 Message-ID: <524D7F43.60102@ti.com> References: <1380634382-15609-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1380634382-15609-2-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <524D65A3.5090906@ti.com> <524D6B83.5030308@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <524D6B83.5030308@arm.com> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" Cc: "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Stephen Warren , "Rafael J. Wysocki" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 10/03/2013 08:05 AM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: [...] >> However, could you squash this to patch #2 -> having implementation >> and binding together is better for git log history. >> > Based on some arguments on the other threads[1] on devicetree list, I thought > having separate patches for binding and driver changes is preferred. Hence the > split, I am OK either way. Thanks for pointing the discussion out. /me might rant about this ;) -> if someone has a strong opinion about this, they should probably propose a change to submitting patches guideline.. Grr.. I leave this to Rafael as to how he'd like this to be squashed/split > > Can I add your ACK/Reviewed-by otherwise ? > > Regards, > Sudeep > > [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg04855.html > -- Regards, Nishanth Menon