On 26 July 2014 01:32, Mike Turquette <mike.turquette@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So my opinion is to figure out how to specify the shared-clock versus > independent-clock parameter it DT. I think the big issue here is the > topology semantics around the cpus node, and I'll stay out of that > stuff. But let's please not introduce a random API for a single merge > window and let's also not over-consolidate machine driver code just for > the sake of having fewer C files. Returning almost after a month to this :( - I agree that consolidation to cpufreq-cpu0 driver is good but adding a backend clk driver for that is bad. I would look around supporting callbacks to cpufreq-cpu0 driver. So that ->target()/->target_index() can be specified by platform drivers and rest of the code can be used. But that's the next problem to solve. - Back to the first issue. How do we sharing information from DT ? As I read them (and I may be wrong in understanding that), there were conflicting ideas from many.. Can we please decide how we want to see these bindings? So, that I can implement them quickly and close this thread... Its just hanging in the middle as there wasn't a single clean solution yet. -- 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
