On 30/08/2018 20:43, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > Add device-tree binding that describes CPU frequency-scaling hardware > found on NVIDIA Tegra20/30 SoC's. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../cpufreq/nvidia,tegra20-cpufreq.txt | 38 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/nvidia,tegra20-cpufreq.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/nvidia,tegra20-cpufreq.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/nvidia,tegra20-cpufreq.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..2c51f676e958 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/nvidia,tegra20-cpufreq.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ > +Binding for NVIDIA Tegra20 CPUFreq > +================================== > + > +Required properties: > +- clocks: Must contain an entry for each entry in clock-names. > + See ../clocks/clock-bindings.txt for details. > +- clock-names: Must include the following entries: > + - pll_x: main-parent for CPU clock, must be the first entry > + - backup: intermediate-parent for CPU clock > + - cpu: the CPU clock Is it likely that 'backup' will be anything other that pll_p? If not why not just call it pll_p? Personally, I don't 'backup' to descriptive even though I can see what you mean. I can see that you want to make this flexible, but if the likelihood is that we will just use pll_p then I am not sure it is warranted at this point. Cheers Jon -- nvpublic
