On 30/05/14 19:41, Tomasz Figa wrote:
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.
Ah, I misunderstood that. That should be fine as it avoids duplication.
Regards,
Sudeep
--
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
