Dear Viresh Kumar, On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 05:58:22 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 17 July 2014 02:48, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't like that idea, but I wonder what other people think. > > Hmm, the other thread around looking at the bindings is really slow. Could you summarize what is the issue with the binding? At least for the case where we have one clock per CPU, the DT binding is really dead simple: each CPU node can carry a "clocks" property, and a "clock-latency" property. I really don't see why a long discussion is needed to agree on such a binding. Now, if the DT binding problem is related to those cases where you have siblings, i.e one clock controlling *some* of the CPUs, but not all CPUs or just one CPU, then maybe we could leave this aside for now, only support the following cases: * One clock for all CPUs * One clock for each CPU Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- 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
