On Thursday, July 17, 2014 01:11:45 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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.. Before I apply anything in this area, I need a clear statement from the ARM people as a group on what the approach is going to be. Rafael -- 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
