On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:45:26AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22-09-16, 12:24, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 09/21/2016 02:32 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > It was never compulsory to have a compatible string in the OPP table. > > > Fix the documentation to mark it optional. > > >
NAK. > > > Also update its description a bit. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > > Why? I'd prefer the compatible string to be required so we know what > > sort of node it is. Agreed. > Okay, the code doesn't have any checks for it then and that needs to be fixed. Why? The kernel is not a DT validator. > Just for my clarity, for platforms with special OPP bindings and so a > different > compatible string like: "operating-points-v2-XYZ", should the compatible > string > contain both "operating-points-v2" and the above one? It would be easier to > check for "operating-points-v2" in that case from core code. That would imply operating-points-v2-XYZ has extra properties or is different in some way. If an OS only understanding operating-points-v2 will work, then yes it should have both. If not, then no. Rob
