[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