On 01/12/14 13:29, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at 18:24, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote:
Thanks a lot for working on this, we really need to figure it out one day!
:)
Your patches seem well-implemented, so if everybody thinks the general
approach is the best solution, we should do that. From my point of view,
there are two things I would do differently:
- In the DT binding, I would strongly prefer anything but the root compatible
property as the key for the new platforms. Clearly we have to keep using
it for the backwards-compatibility case, as you do, but I think there
are more appropriate places to put it. Sorting from most favorite to least
favorite, my list would be:
1. a new property in /cpus/
2. a new property each /cpus/cpu@... node.
I did it this way earlier and named it dvfs-method but probably putting this
into the /cpus/ node is far better. But then Sudeep asked to utilize
compatible property only..
Are you fine with the name here? "dvfs-method"
That's right, I don't like driver specific method in the cpu node as you
initially did. But if it's a property in the chosen node (where we
usually put the Linux specific properties), I am fine with
that as Arnd has illustrated in his patch.
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
