On 18-04-17, 17:01, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Understood. I would incline towards reusing regulators we that's what is It can be just a regulator, but it can be anything else as well. That entity may have its own clock/volt/current tunables, etc. > changed behind the scene. Calling this operating performance point > is misleading and doesn't align well with existing specs/features. Yeah, but there are no voltage levels available here and that doesn't fit as a regulator then. > Understood. We have exactly same thing with SCPI but it controls both > frequency and voltage referred as operating points. In general, this OPP > terminology is used in SCPI/ACPI/SCMI specifications as both frequency > and voltage control. I am bit worried that this binding might introduce > confusions on the definitions. But it can be reworded/renamed easily if > required. Yeah, so far we have been looking at OPPs as freq-voltage pairs ONLY and that is changing. I am not sure if it going in the wrong direction really. Without frequency also it is an operating point for the domain. Isn't it? -- 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
