[PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings
nm at ti.com
Wed May 13 08:00:41 PDT 2015
On 05/13/2015 12:05 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-05-15, 11:04, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> Just curious -> is'nt it better to just have min<->max range? binding
>> as it stands right now is open to interpretation as to what will be
>> attempted and in what sequence? with a valid min, target or max -
>> is'nt it more power efficient always to go for a "min" than a target?
>> Further, min<->max implies anywhere in that range and is more
>> consistent with "regulator like" description.
> It came out after some discussions on the list, you may want to go
> through that.
I see the thread saying that voltage-tolerance is a crappy idea -> I
agree to that.
What I dont see in the thread, and the point I raised here, why have
nominal/typical voltage at all? min<->max should be sufficient,
correct? If the device cannot function at min, then it should not be
documented as part of valid range at all.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel