On 26 November 2014 at 22:04, santosh shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Its really not 'dvfs-method' but really the actual driver which you > want to probe. Also we should just have one global way to parse > DT vs non-DT cpufreq drivers. In other words, instead of matching > multiple driver strings for different drivers, we should come up with > slightly generic binding. Probably 'cpufreq-dt' for all DT based probed > CPUFREQ drivers. > > What you say ? I got a bit confused. :( The whole purpose of this binding is to select which cpufreq driver to choose from the available ones. Are you saying that we should have only one cpufreq driver that works with DT ? I don't think that would be the right decision, but we should try to reuse cpufreq-dt wherever possible. Or are you saying that some common code should parse this DT information? This is what I said in the patch, we can write another file which will just create a platform_device for us, depending on the string that came in. -- 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
