[PATCH RFC v2 2/2] Documentation: arm: define DT C-states bindings

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 03:23:59PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 02:35:11PM +0000, Amit Kucheria wrote:

> > DT-newbie here. What would happen if a vendor does not characterise
> > the latency at each OPP? IOW, the table only contains latency values
> > for a subset of the OPPs.

> The bindings are explicit, so the kernel will barf. Adding a LUT to map
> latencies to OPPs make me cringe, so I would not change the current
> bindings.

Actually looking at the OPP binding I do wonder if it might not be
better to have a v2/rich binding for them which is extensible - the fact
that it's not possible to add additional information seems like an
issue, this can't be the only thing anyone might want to add and lining
up multiple tables is never fun.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140122/8b7df996/attachment.sig>