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

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:25:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-05-15, 14:42, Michael Turquette wrote:
> > Quoting Viresh Kumar (2015-04-30 05:07:59)
> 
> > Why should this new binding exist?

> The answer to this particular query is perhaps simple, i.e. we have
> unsolved problems that we wanted to solve in a generic way.

> But probably the bigger question is "Should we really put the OPPs
> (new or old bindings) in DT".

And also is trying to do this in a completely generic manner the right
way of going about things - do we really understand the problem area
well enough to create a completely generic solution for all cases,
bearing in mind that once things go into a DT binding they become an ABI?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150513/2aa55f2b/attachment.sig>