Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt: cpufreq: st: Provide bindings for ST's CPUFreq implementation

From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, rob.herring@linaro.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@stlinux.com,
	rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, ajitpal.singh@st.com, sre@kernel.org,
	dbaryshkov@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt: cpufreq: st: Provide bindings for ST's CPUFreq implementation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:20:27 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150728075027.GB13710@linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150728074104.GL21114@x1>

Cc'ing Rob as well..

On 28-07-15, 08:41, Lee Jones wrote:
> I have two issues with that.  Firstly, although the driver uses the
> OPP API (it also uses the Regulator and Clock API too), it is
> fundamentally a CPUFreq driver, so I think it should have a CPUFreq
> DT entry.  Secondly, if someone doesn't know the history of the
> ST CPUFreq set, they will look here for an accompanying document.  I
> personally wouldn't think to look in power/*opp* for a CPUFreq
> binding.
> 
> Perhaps, as all of the CPUFreq drivers use the OPP API, everything
> should be moved to drivers/base/power or drivers/power?

Okay, looks fine :)

-- 
viresh