On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 20:11:25, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 02:02:53PM +0000, Bedia, Vaibhav wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 18:50:55, Shawn Guo wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 01:02:30PM +0000, Bedia, Vaibhav wrote: > > > > In the current approach the OPP data is split across DT and kernel code. If you take the > > > > other approach all OPP entries can reside in DT and for someone just looking at that file > > > > there's no confusion about what the kernel could potentially support. Whether a particular > > > > an OPP should be supported is best decided at runtime. > > > > > > > Listing the OPP that some Si rev can not support in DT is also > > > a confusion to people who is just looking at DTS. To me, the approach > > > is not really doing anything better on this aspect. > > > > > > > I still think putting the OPP data in a single place is better. > > > Okay, I agree with you on that and plan to commit the following changes. > But no, still no platform hook. > Fair enough. Regards, Vaibhav -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
