On 05/14/2014 01:24 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 14 May 2014 11:39, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I agree with Nishanth here, that point 1 (as described by Viresh at >> [*]) is a more scalable approach. > > The only reason why I wanted all that to be done at OPP level was to > ensure if somebody else also needs it apart from cpufreq, they don't have > to duplicate code and find it.. As it is present at a central place.. > > But if no other code is going to look for that, it may just be fine as is.. > If we eventually have a need beyond cpufreq (say devfreq) with similar instances, then it makes sense to move it out to a generic place. Either way, code implementation/duplication is a OS problem - and should be looked at independent of the description in dts. If we feel the description is valid hardware description (which, personally, I do), then lets go to the next discussion point of where to put it - generic or cpufreq specific (here, I have no preference), and finally decide the implementation as necessary as a result of the description. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon -- 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
