Hi, On 07/11/2018 01:34 AM, Evan Green wrote: > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 8:51 AM Georgi Djakov <georgi.dja...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Add documentation for the interconnect consumer bindings, that will allow >> to link a device node (consumer) to its interconnect controller hardware. >> >> Tha aim is to enable drivers to request a framework API to configure an >> interconnect path by providing their struct device pointer and a name. >> >> Signed-off-by: Georgi Djakov <georgi.dja...@linaro.org> >> --- >> .../bindings/interconnect/interconnect.txt | 27 +++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/interconnect.txt >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/interconnect.txt >> index 6e2b2971b094..0ad65dccbe8b 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/interconnect.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/interconnect.txt >> @@ -31,3 +31,30 @@ Example: >> clocks = <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_SNOC_CLK>, >> <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_SNOC_A_CLK>; >> }; >> + >> + >> += interconnect consumers = >> + >> +The interconnect consumers are device nodes which consume the interconnect >> +path(s) provided by the interconnect provider. There can be multiple > > I wonder if this sentence could be more descriptive. Maybe something like: > > The interconnect consumers are device nodes which dynamically express > their bandwidth requirements along interconnect paths they are > connected to. > > ...or choose a better one if this one's a mouthful. >
This sounds much better. Thank you! Georgi
