On 4 July 2014 03:46, Mike Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry for being dense, but I still do not get why trying to dynamically > discover a shared rate-changeable clock is a better approach than simply > describing the hardware in DT? > > Is adding a property to the CPU binding that describes how the CPUs in a > cluster expect to use a clock somehow a non-starter? It is certainly a > win for readability when staring at DT and trying to understand how DVFS > on that CPU is meant to work (as opposed to hiding that knowledge behind > a tree walk). Yeah, having something like what you suggested from DT is the perfect solution to get over this. The only reason why I am not touching that here is to not delay other patches just because of that. There are separate threads going on for that and probably somebody else was trying to push for that. That's it, nothing more. I would definitely like to use those bindings instead of the crazy routines we are trying here, once that is finalized :) -- 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
