On 10/17/18 11:40 AM, Jon Hunter wrote: > > 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. That won't describe HW, but software. And device tree should describe HW.
