From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC] cpufreq: Add bindings for CPU clock sharing topology
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:52:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOesGMhuNzVtUkaUjF+JjNgHcgf08WiM0DG-kzwtcyUxkK_zow@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKohpo=MmoALOHg-=7cf0jm=OJO57TWQZQXqkRwhRwU-DGPMmA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 18 July 2014 11:47, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>> Why complicate it by using two properties?
>>
>> If there is no property, then the CPUs are assumed to be controlled
>> independently.
>>
>> if there is a clock-master = <phandle> property, then that points at
>> the cpu that is the main one controlling clock for the group.
>>
>> There's really no need to label the master -- it will be the only one
>> with incoming links but nothing outgoing. And a master without slaves
>> is an independently controlled cpu so you should be fine in that
>> aspect too.
>
> I thought so earlier, but then I remembered something I read long back.
> Don't remember which thread now, but I *might* be wrong..
>
> "Bindings are like APIs and new bindings shouldn't break existing stuff.."
>
> And:
>
>> If there is no property, then the CPUs are assumed to be controlled
>> independently.
>
> seems to break the existing API.
What is the current API that is being broken, in your opinion?
> But if that isn't the case, the bindings are very simple & clear to handle.
> Diff for new bindings:
It's somewhat confusing to see a diff to the patch instead of a new
version. It seems to remove the cpu 0 entry now?
-Olof
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-18 21:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-18 5:35 [RFC] cpufreq: Add bindings for CPU clock sharing topology Viresh Kumar
2014-07-18 6:17 ` Olof Johansson
2014-07-18 6:40 ` Viresh Kumar
2014-07-18 21:52 ` Olof Johansson [this message]
2014-07-19 14:46 ` Viresh Kumar
2014-07-19 15:24 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-07-20 12:07 ` Viresh Kumar
2014-07-21 13:40 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-07-24 0:33 ` Mike Turquette
2014-07-24 2:24 ` Rob Herring
2014-07-24 10:39 ` Viresh Kumar
2014-07-25 20:02 ` Mike Turquette
2014-08-25 7:05 ` Viresh Kumar
2014-07-21 17:00 ` Rob Herring
2014-07-23 4:55 ` Viresh Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAOesGMhuNzVtUkaUjF+JjNgHcgf08WiM0DG-kzwtcyUxkK_zow@mail.gmail.com \
--to=olof@lixom.net \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).