From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] OMAP: introduce OPP layer for device-specific OPPs Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:40:42 -0500 Message-ID: <4C92104A.5040901@ti.com> References: <1284587799-9637-1-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> <1284587799-9637-2-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from comal.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.152]:58688 "EHLO comal.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753341Ab0IPMkx (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:40:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Kevin Hilman , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Linus Walleij had written, on 09/16/2010 07:19 AM, the following: > 2010/9/15 Kevin Hilman : > >> OMAP SOCs have a standard set of tuples consisting of frequency and >> voltage pairs that the device will support per voltage domain. These >> are called Operating Performance Points or OPPs. >> (...) >> This introduces a common handling OPP mechanism accross all OMAPs. >> As a start this is used for OMAP3. > > OPPs are a generic concept, it's in silicon construction textbooks and all. > Should this code not be made generic instead? You wouldn't make > regulators or even DMA platform-specific these days, so why should > OPPs be? As far as I see this patch : hwmod[1] which is omap specific which inturn depends on omap_device. - this impacts opp_add function in the opp layer. [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=128226580816341&w=2 -- Regards, Nishanth Menon