On 30.05.2014 20:38, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 30/05/14 19:15, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> On 30.05.2014 20:05, Thomas Abraham wrote: >>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> >>> wrote: [snip] >>>> Why are these in both operating-points and boost-frequencies? It'll be >>>> really easy to accidentally forget to mark something as a >>>> boost-frequency this way. Why not have a boost-points instead? >>> > > I was told that index is not preferred based on the previous discussions > when the OPP bindings were designed. In addition the OPP binding doesn't > enforce any ordering. There are thermal bindings that assume otherwise and > is broken. So boost-points is not feasible. > My understanding of Mark's comment was that the boost-points property would use the same format as operating-points and parsing code would just concatenate operating points with boost points after making the latter with necessary flag or whatever. Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |