On 28-04-17, 10:44, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Just thinking out loud, I can see platforms with have OPPs can move to > this binding in future eliminating the need to specify the clock and > regulators explicitly. So, I am not saying I against this idea, but I > see it might complicate the above case in terms of the precedence that > we consider in DT from backward compatibility. > > E.g. if you now use this for just regulators, then I assume you continue > to use clocks. However, that makes it difficult for platforms > implementing *real* OPPs to reuse this binding as they may expect to > skip clock altogether. > > Also we may need OPPs(both volt/freq), voltage only and clock only > bindings though all 3 are driven by the firmware and all are at abstract > levels. I am trying to broaden the scope now without having to churn > this binding again in near future. > > So I don't totally agree that voltage regulators much have *real* > voltages and not abstract scale. Yes the correct bindings might have > such restrictions but can't we extend it ? > > Anyways these are just my opinion. Everyone's opinion has equal merit here :) I believe that some of your hesitation came from the point that I have made opp-hz optional. That isn't the case anymore with V6. Can we please take the discussion to that thread now and see if you can find similar problems there as well. Thanks a lot. -- 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
