On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:42:49AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 26/04/17 14:55, Mark Brown wrote: > > As I'm getting fed up of saying: if the values you are setting are not > > voltages and do not behave like voltages then the hardware should not be > > represented as a voltage regulator since if they are represented as > > voltage regulators things will expect to be able to control them as > > voltage regulators. This hardware is quite clearly providing OPPs > > directly, I would expect this to be handled in the OPP code somehow. > I agree with you that we need to be absolutely sure on what it actually > represents. > But as more and more platform are pushing such power controls to > dedicated M3 or similar processors, we need abstraction. Though we are > controlling hardware, we do so indirectly. Since there were discussions > around device tree representing hardware vs platform, I tend to think, > we are moving towards platform(something similar to ACPI). I don't think there's a meaningful hardware/platform distinction here - in terms of what DT is describing the platform bit is just what the hardware (the microcontrollers) happen to do, DT doesn't much care about that though.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
