On 08/20/2013 04:00 AM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: ... > Until we get more feedback and agreement on new proposal can we have > this simple amendment in this patch to the existing binding ? Since the > new proposal[1] is backward compatible(this patch adding support for > option#5 to existing option#1), we will have to add support for other > binding options in [1] later. > > This is needed to support shared OPPs with simple/single OPP profile > and also to fix the broken and unused binding > @Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/arm_big_little_dt.txt > > Regards, > Sudeep > > [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg06563.html Presumably the desire for cpu1's node to say "go look at cpu0's node for OPP" is because they share OPPs. Don't they share OPPs because they are parts of the same device - that device being the CPU complex. As such, why not define the OPPs in /cpus rather than in each of /cpus/cpuN? Of course, that doesn't help if there are separate CPU and GPU nodes that just happen to have the same set of OPPs and you want to share them to save DT space. Is that at all likely? I'd suggest/bike-shed that operating-points-device is not the correct property name; it somehow implies that the other device actively defines the OPPs for this device, rather than just happening to have the same OPPs. Perhaps "operating-points-identical-to"? -- 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
