From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 12:03:57 +0100 Message-ID: <20150513110357.GD3066@sirena.org.uk> References: <20150512214224.16410.15922@quantum> <20150513085528.GA6994@linux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="52aklQ8BZHJhx2Z3" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150513085528.GA6994@linux> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Michael Turquette , Rafael Wysocki , rob.herring@linaro.org, arnd.bergmann@linaro.org, nm@ti.com, sboyd@codeaurora.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, grant.likely@linaro.org, olof@lixom.net, Sudeep.Holla@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, viswanath.puttagunta@linaro.org, l.stach@pengutronix.de, thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ta.omasab@gmail.com, kesavan.abhilash@gmail.com, khilman@linaro.org, santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --52aklQ8BZHJhx2Z3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:25:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12-05-15, 14:42, Michael Turquette wrote: > > Quoting Viresh Kumar (2015-04-30 05:07:59) >=20 > > Why should this new binding exist? > The answer to this particular query is perhaps simple, i.e. we have > unsolved problems that we wanted to solve in a generic way. > But probably the bigger question is "Should we really put the OPPs > (new or old bindings) in DT". And also is trying to do this in a completely generic manner the right way of going about things - do we really understand the problem area well enough to create a completely generic solution for all cases, bearing in mind that once things go into a DT binding they become an ABI? --52aklQ8BZHJhx2Z3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVUy+aAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQH8QH/A0s+0zmXE1+H98e/OZRP4ga D7Gj/TDfBadRsr/ALoJy6sxPtf81ZXR1hMmQNw9MTH7ZcyMeV+Bk4mLZpyF3UyPT 3aPxArOx7k8S8izu47Qkk/X0te8SB5bVg3qCvdUxTJhLlmg6qkTZVV+wg+hK/Ll9 BU00eGSo+HpKvJvV5rrxfs0HBAHUcDrLUtz9KXKgT+ZA/WXSDtcTKnkHWxfd6nCW RB/YaNVWcs3VCLdOiyApYyZpeo4wE+Ju6q/GXpsD4BkL8JX0+O1153kPCWELXmS3 rsFJ4t9NF28PQI73lWSkhEqrmbuwkSq0Gb/sadHxYFpHX1Mqny9bl1wFQ0NLwKg= =hp71 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --52aklQ8BZHJhx2Z3-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 12:03:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings In-Reply-To: <20150513085528.GA6994@linux> References: <20150512214224.16410.15922@quantum> <20150513085528.GA6994@linux> Message-ID: <20150513110357.GD3066@sirena.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:25:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12-05-15, 14:42, Michael Turquette wrote: > > Quoting Viresh Kumar (2015-04-30 05:07:59) > > > Why should this new binding exist? > The answer to this particular query is perhaps simple, i.e. we have > unsolved problems that we wanted to solve in a generic way. > But probably the bigger question is "Should we really put the OPPs > (new or old bindings) in DT". And also is trying to do this in a completely generic manner the right way of going about things - do we really understand the problem area well enough to create a completely generic solution for all cases, bearing in mind that once things go into a DT binding they become an ABI? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: