Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: add support to specify phandle of another node for OPP
From: Stephen Warren <hidden>
Date: 2013-08-01 16:49:04
Also in:
linux-pm
From: Stephen Warren <hidden>
Date: 2013-08-01 16:49:04
Also in:
linux-pm
On 08/01/2013 07:54 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: ...
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. ...
quoted
Are you suggesting we have OPP tables per board?Yes, for the reasons I give above. Common OPP tabless can easily be factored into separate include files to allow for arbitrary composition.
Using separate include files sounds like a reasonable idea.