Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:38:56 +0100 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 8/8] dt: cpufreq: st: Provide bindings for ST's CPUFreq implementation |
| |
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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. :)
Okay, fair point.
> > > 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.
Do you always write your documentation before implementing a feature?
Surely it goes; Requirements Gathering Plan and Prepare Implement Test Document Deliver
;)
... but as I say, I can re-order if required. It's really not a problem.
> > > > +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..
That's not what it looks like to me:
git grep -C20 "compatible.*cpufreq" -- arch
-- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| |