On 4 July 2014 03:46, Mike Turquette [off-list ref] wrote:

Sorry for being dense, but I still do not get why trying to dynamically
discover a shared rate-changeable clock is a better approach than simply
describing the hardware in DT?

Is adding a property to the CPU binding that describes how the CPUs in a
cluster expect to use a clock somehow a non-starter? It is certainly a
win for readability when staring at DT and trying to understand how DVFS
on that CPU is meant to work (as opposed to hiding that knowledge behind
a tree walk).

Yeah, having something like what you suggested from DT is the perfect
solution to get over this. The only reason why I am not touching that here
is to not delay other patches just because of that.

There are separate threads going on for that and probably somebody
else was trying to push for that.

That's it, nothing more. I would definitely like to use those bindings instead
 of the crazy routines we are trying here, once that is finalized :)

--
viresh