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

Nishanth Menon 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.
> https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-kernel/2015-January/019844.html

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.

Nishanth Menon

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list