[PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar at linaro.org
Tue May 5 03:48:59 PDT 2015


On 4 May 2015 at 17:42, Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 05:37:59PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
>> +- opp-microamp: current in micro Amperes. It can contain entries for multiple
>> +  regulators.
>> +
>> +  A single regulator's current is specified with an array of size one or three.
>> +  Single entry is for target current and three entries are for <target min max>
>> +  currents.
>
> What is this for - are you trying to define OPPs for current regulators?
> If you are that's worrying, I can't think of a sensible use case.  If
> that's not what's happening then the binding needs to be more specific
> about what this is supposed to mean.

Its another property of the same voltage regulator we are using in
opp-microvolt.
I hope that makes sense ?

And that's why I wrote this as well:

+  Entries for multiple regulators must be present in the same order as
+  regulators are specified in device's DT node. If few regulators don't provide
+  capability to configure current, then values for then should be marked as
+  zero.

i.e. this is optional but the voltage regulator isn't..

But, perhaps I need to write it with more clarity? Or this field doesn't make
sense ?

FWIW, its an outcome of this request from Stephen:

https://www.marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=142370250522589&w=3



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list