Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

[Viresh Kumar]

On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the
> node name be:
> 
> 		opp@600000000 {

I thought the @... had a special meaning and we might end up creating
some device for the node then? Perhaps I am mistaken.

But then, yeah it will make it more readable as you mentioned.

> At least it seems that the assumption is we can store all the
> possible combinations of OPP values for a particular frequency in
> the same node. Following this style would make dt compilation
> fail if two nodes have the same frequency.

Right.

> Also, this makes it sound like opp-supported-hw is really just
> telling us if this is a supported frequency or not for the
> particular device we're running on.

That's right.

> The current wording makes it

Of the commit log ? Or the way the nodes are written?

> sound like we could have two OPP nodes with the same frequency
> but different voltages inside them, which we're trying to
> discourage by compressing the tables into less nodes.

No no, we can't have two nodes with same frequency.

-- 
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/