On 17 July 2014 13:05, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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, Yeah, we are stuck on that for now. > only support the following cases: > > * One clock for all CPUs > * One clock for each CPU Yeah, so I also proposed this yesterday that we stick to only these two implementations for now. And was looking at how would the cpufreq-generic driver come to know about this. So, one way out now is to see if "clocks" property is defined in multiple cpu nodes, if yes don't compare them and consider separate clocks for each cpu. We don't have to try matching that to any other node, as that's a very bad idea. Mike was already very upset with that :) @Stephen/Rafael: Does that sound any better? Ofcourse the final thing is to get bindings to figure out relations between CPUs.. -- 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
