On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the
> node name be:
>
> opp@600000000 {
I thought the @... had a special meaning and we might end up creating
some device for the node then? Perhaps I am mistaken.
But then, yeah it will make it more readable as you mentioned.
> At least it seems that the assumption is we can store all the
> possible combinations of OPP values for a particular frequency in
> the same node. Following this style would make dt compilation
> fail if two nodes have the same frequency.
Right.
> Also, this makes it sound like opp-supported-hw is really just
> telling us if this is a supported frequency or not for the
> particular device we're running on.
That's right.
> The current wording makes it
Of the commit log ? Or the way the nodes are written?
> sound like we could have two OPP nodes with the same frequency
> but different voltages inside them, which we're trying to
> discourage by compressing the tables into less nodes.
No no, we can't have two nodes with same frequency.
--
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
