On 01/04/2016 12:23, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Cc'ing Rob and Mason.
On 30-03-16, 09:53, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
I think it should be something in the /cpus or the /opp_table hierarchy, not the root of the device tree, but other than that I don't care much whether it's a variation of the oppv2 compatible string or an additional property in any of the nodes.
So you mean for future DT files we can have something like this:
cpus { compatible = "operation-points-v2"; [...]
And the cpufreq-dt driver can match /cpus node's compatible string against "operating-points-v2" and create a device at runtime ?
Hmmm... I'm using the older operating-points prop in my platform's DT. Why can't we define a new property (e.g. "enable-generic-cpufreq") which registers the "cpufreq-dt" pseudo-device?
And platforms that manually register "cpufreq-dt" would be automatically white-listed, even if they don't have the new property, to maintain backward-compat?
@Rob: Will that be acceptable to you? We are discussing (again) about how to probe cpufreq-dt driver automatically for platforms :)
The cpus node doesn't have any 'compatible' property today, and I will be required to add that in this case.
Why does it need a compatible prop? Why isn't a bool prop enough?
Regards.