On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the > node name be: > > opp@600000000 { I thought the @... had a special meaning and we might end up creating some device for the node then? Perhaps I am mistaken. But then, yeah it will make it more readable as you mentioned. > At least it seems that the assumption is we can store all the > possible combinations of OPP values for a particular frequency in > the same node. Following this style would make dt compilation > fail if two nodes have the same frequency. Right. > Also, this makes it sound like opp-supported-hw is really just > telling us if this is a supported frequency or not for the > particular device we're running on. That's right. > The current wording makes it Of the commit log ? Or the way the nodes are written? > sound like we could have two OPP nodes with the same frequency > but different voltages inside them, which we're trying to > discourage by compressing the tables into less nodes. No no, we can't have two nodes with same frequency. -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html