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