From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Gerlach Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Documentation: dt: add bindings for ti-cpufreq Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 09:36:24 -0500 Message-ID: <57D025E8.6030202@ti.com> References: <20160901025328.376-1-d-gerlach@ti.com> <20160901025328.376-2-d-gerlach@ti.com> <20160907051215.GN27345@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160907051215.GN27345@vireshk-i7> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Tony Lindgren , Mark Rutland , Nishanth Menon List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 09/07/2016 12:12 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 31-08-16, 21:53, Dave Gerlach wrote: >> +In 'operating-points-v2' table: >> +- compatible: Should be >> + - 'operating-points-v2-ti-am3352-cpu' for am335x SoCs >> + - 'operating-points-v2-ti-am4372-cpu' for am43xx SoCs >> + - 'operating-points-v2-ti-dra7-cpu' for dra7xx/am57xx SoCs > > Why do you need SoC specific compatible here? Are you defining new > fields in OPP tables for your SoC ? How are the tables for your case > going to differ from the ones using "operating-points-v2" compatible > string? > I thought you had suggested that I do this in your comments from v1, but I guess that was dependent on whether or not I put the properties I have inserted into the cpu node into the operating-points table instead. I still have gotten no comments from any DT maintainers so I left it as is. I am still not sure if that is acceptable. Regards, Dave