On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 18 July 2014 11:47, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Why complicate it by using two properties? >> >> If there is no property, then the CPUs are assumed to be controlled >> independently. >> >> if there is a clock-master = <phandle> property, then that points at >> the cpu that is the main one controlling clock for the group. >> >> There's really no need to label the master -- it will be the only one >> with incoming links but nothing outgoing. And a master without slaves >> is an independently controlled cpu so you should be fine in that >> aspect too. > > I thought so earlier, but then I remembered something I read long back. > Don't remember which thread now, but I *might* be wrong.. > > "Bindings are like APIs and new bindings shouldn't break existing stuff.." > > And: > >> If there is no property, then the CPUs are assumed to be controlled >> independently. > > seems to break the existing API. What is the current API that is being broken, in your opinion? > But if that isn't the case, the bindings are very simple & clear to handle. > Diff for new bindings: It's somewhat confusing to see a diff to the patch instead of a new version. It seems to remove the cpu 0 entry now? -Olof -- 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
