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

[Viresh Kumar]

On 20-05-15, 12:39, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 05/19/15 19:07, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 19-05-15, 17:51, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> >> Also I wonder if all properties should be optional? I don't have this
> >> scenario today, but perhaps the frequencies could be encoded in fuses,
> >> but the voltages wouldn't be and so we might want to read out the
> >> frequencies for a fixed set of voltages. Of course, if there's nothing
> >> in the OPP node at all, it's not very useful, so perhaps some statement
> >> that at least one of the frequency/voltage/amperage properties should be
> >> present.
> > I am not sure. What we are trying to do (fill partially in DT and
> > partially in platform), is a trick and not the right use of bindings.
> >
> > Ideally whatever is passed in DT should be complete by itself and
> > doesn't require platform to tweak it (which it can't). For example,
> > the cpufreq-dt driver will try to initialize OPPs from the DT directly
> > and wouldn't know about the platform tweaks. That can work eventually
> > as platform will add OPPs for the same bindings before cpufreq driver
> > will try to do, but that's a trick.
> >
> > And then its all about frequency in the first place, and so marking
> > that optional looks wrong. Probably not the right use of these
> > bindings.
> 
> Ok then I won't be using these bindings on any of the new platforms I
> have where half the data is in one place, and half in another. But for
> some of Krait based platforms I have they should be useable.

You are not the only one, I have seen other requests (even for the
existing bindings) to fill stuff partially in DT as they want freq to
come from bootloader.

@Rob: What do you suggest for such platforms? Let them keep (ab)using
old or new OPP DT bindings or create another binding to just pass on
freq table?

@Stephen: Can you please provide your feedback on the updated version
please. Thanks.

-- 
viresh