Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:25:09 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 8/8] dt: cpufreq: st: Provide bindings for ST's CPUFreq implementation |
| |
On 23-06-15, 08:06, Lee Jones wrote: > > [Adding Rob] > > Rob is not the only DT Maintainer, there are many of them. The DT > list was CC'ed, which they are all part of. Adding them all > separately is not required IMO.
I didn't Cc him because you missed him, but because we have been discussing opp-v2 bindings recently and this was somehow related to that. :)
> > On 22-06-15, 16:43, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > At least some description was required here on why you need additional > > bindings are what are they. > > Sure, I can do that. > > > Over that, this patch should have been present before any other > > patches using these bindings. > > I've never heard that one before, but it's easy to re-order the set.
I don't know, but it seems obvious to me: Bindings first and then the code.
> > > +Required properties: > > > +------------------- > > > +- compatible : Supported values are: > > > + "st,stih407-cpufreq" > > > > Nodes for virtual devices aren't allowed in DT. > > Then why do Exynos, Spear, HREF and Snowball have CPUFreq nodes? > > One rule for one ... ?
Not really, but I got a bit confused now with your reply.
So, what I meant when I wrote: "Nodes for virtual devices aren't allowed in DT", was that we aren't supposed to do something like:
cpufreq { ... }
in DT as cpufreq isn't a device here. A CPU is a device and that can contain whatever property we feel is reasonable.
What SPEAr and Exyons did was putting something in the cpu-node. Not a node for cpufreq device itself. Couldn't find HREF and snowball's bindings though..
-- viresh
| |