Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 31 Oct 2015 07:50:03 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding |
| |
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
| |