On 10-10-18, 08:27, Jordan Crouse wrote: > I'm not convinced that required-opps would work. I'm worried that the > format is too vague if we need to use it for multiple paths and possibly > other uses too, consider this: > > required-opp = <&mdp_path0_opp3, &mdp_path1_opp5, &mdp_rpmh_opp1>; > > This has ordering problems and IMO pollutes the DT namespace for no > great technical advantage. I appreciate the hesitation for opening up > the flood gates for new OPP bindings but we are entering a new era > of hyper power aware devices and some concessions will need to be made. Sure. -- viresh
