[PATCH 8/8] dt: cpufreq: st: Provide bindings for ST's CPUFreq implementation

On 23-06-15, 08:06, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

[Adding Rob]

Rob is not the only DT Maintainer, there are many of them.  The DT
list was CC'ed, which they are all part of.  Adding them all
separately is not required IMO.

I didn't Cc him because you missed him, but because we have been
discussing opp-v2 bindings recently and this was somehow related to
that. :)

quoted

On 22-06-15, 16:43, Lee Jones wrote:

At least some description was required here on why you need additional
bindings are what are they.

Sure, I can do that.

quoted

Over that, this patch should have been present before any other
patches using these bindings.

I've never heard that one before, but it's easy to re-order the set.

I don't know, but it seems obvious to me: Bindings first and then the
code.

quoted

quoted

+Required properties:
+-------------------
+- compatible		: Supported values are:
+				"st,stih407-cpufreq"

Nodes for virtual devices aren't allowed in DT.

Then why do Exynos, Spear, HREF and Snowball have CPUFreq nodes?

One rule for one ... ?

Not really, but I got a bit confused now with your reply.

So, what I meant when I wrote: "Nodes for virtual devices aren't
allowed in DT", was that we aren't supposed to do something like:

cpufreq {
 ...
}

in DT as cpufreq isn't a device here. A CPU is a device and that can
contain whatever property we feel is reasonable.

What SPEAr and Exyons did was putting something in the cpu-node. Not a
node for cpufreq device itself. Couldn't find HREF and snowball's
bindings though..

-- 
viresh