Thread (40 messages) 40 messages, 4 authors, 2013-08-23

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: add support to specify phandle of another node for OPP

From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <hidden>
Date: 2013-08-02 13:43:41
Also in: linux-pm

On 01/08/13 17:49, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/01/2013 07:54 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
...
quoted
We seem to be going over two cases, which both feel wrong to me:

* One SoC used in multiple boards, where on some boards an OPP cannot be
  used because some requirement is not met. In this case, the board's
  dts (by including the SoC's dtsi) describes something that's not
  necessarily usable, and we seem to have no way to describe in the OPP
  table that the OPP is not usable for that board.
There are probably a lot of examples of this already. For example, for
pinctrl, people often want the SoC .dtsi file to include "pin
configuration nodes" (see
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt) for many
common pinmux configurations in the SoC .dtsi file, so that board files
can simply refer to the already-existing nodes rather than having to
write everything from scratch. Obviously, not all common configurations
are used by every board.

...
Agreed, but I am not convinced with the comparison(pinmux and OPPs).
The main concern I have is that if some developer wants to experiment
with various configurations provided by SoC(e.g. I have seen some SoC
where the pinmux have multiple functions and you can chose one of them)
But that's not true with OPPs, if someone experiments with wrong OPP
profile, then it might damage the board permanently.

Regards,
Sudeep
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help