From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758950AbcIWTzR (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:55:17 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com ([209.85.218.49]:35439 "EHLO mail-oi0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751710AbcIWTzP (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:55:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:55:12 -0500 From: Rob Herring To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Stephen Boyd , Nishanth Menon , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Viresh Kumar , Rafael Wysocki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: compatible is an optional property Message-ID: <20160923195510.GA8699@rob-hp-laptop> References: <483bea3c-a1b4-ce5d-e720-d69fc943ab50@codeaurora.org> <20160923051526.GB17336@vireshk-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160923051526.GB17336@vireshk-i7> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:45:26AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22-09-16, 12:24, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 09/21/2016 02:32 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > It was never compulsory to have a compatible string in the OPP table. > > > Fix the documentation to mark it optional. > > > NAK. > > > Also update its description a bit. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > > > --- > > > > Why? I'd prefer the compatible string to be required so we know what > > sort of node it is. Agreed. > Okay, the code doesn't have any checks for it then and that needs to be fixed. Why? The kernel is not a DT validator. > Just for my clarity, for platforms with special OPP bindings and so a different > compatible string like: "operating-points-v2-XYZ", should the compatible string > contain both "operating-points-v2" and the above one? It would be easier to > check for "operating-points-v2" in that case from core code. That would imply operating-points-v2-XYZ has extra properties or is different in some way. If an OS only understanding operating-points-v2 will work, then yes it should have both. If not, then no. Rob