Re: [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:25:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-05-15, 14:42, Michael Turquette wrote:
> > Quoting Viresh Kumar (2015-04-30 05:07:59)
> 
> > Why should this new binding exist?

> The answer to this particular query is perhaps simple, i.e. we have
> unsolved problems that we wanted to solve in a generic way.

> But probably the bigger question is "Should we really put the OPPs
> (new or old bindings) in DT".

And also is trying to do this in a completely generic manner the right
way of going about things - do we really understand the problem area
well enough to create a completely generic solution for all cases,
bearing in mind that once things go into a DT binding they become an ABI?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux