On 23-06-15, 08:06, Lee Jones wrote: > > [Adding Rob] > > Rob is not the only DT Maintainer, there are many of them. The DT > list was CC'ed, which they are all part of. Adding them all > separately is not required IMO. I didn't Cc him because you missed him, but because we have been discussing opp-v2 bindings recently and this was somehow related to that. :) > > On 22-06-15, 16:43, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > At least some description was required here on why you need additional > > bindings are what are they. > > Sure, I can do that. > > > Over that, this patch should have been present before any other > > patches using these bindings. > > I've never heard that one before, but it's easy to re-order the set. I don't know, but it seems obvious to me: Bindings first and then the code. > > > +Required properties: > > > +------------------- > > > +- compatible : Supported values are: > > > + "st,stih407-cpufreq" > > > > Nodes for virtual devices aren't allowed in DT. > > Then why do Exynos, Spear, HREF and Snowball have CPUFreq nodes? > > One rule for one ... ? Not really, but I got a bit confused now with your reply. So, what I meant when I wrote: "Nodes for virtual devices aren't allowed in DT", was that we aren't supposed to do something like: cpufreq { ... } in DT as cpufreq isn't a device here. A CPU is a device and that can contain whatever property we feel is reasonable. What SPEAr and Exyons did was putting something in the cpu-node. Not a node for cpufreq device itself. Couldn't find HREF and snowball's bindings though.. -- 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