On Monday 01 December 2014 13:35:25 Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 01/12/14 13:29, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at 18:24, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
Thanks a lot for working on this, we really need to figure it out one day!
Your patches seem well-implemented, so if everybody thinks the general approach is the best solution, we should do that. From my point of view, there are two things I would do differently:
- In the DT binding, I would strongly prefer anything but the root compatible property as the key for the new platforms. Clearly we have to keep using it for the backwards-compatibility case, as you do, but I think there are more appropriate places to put it. Sorting from most favorite to least favorite, my list would be: 1. a new property in /cpus/ 2. a new property each /cpus/cpu@... node.
I did it this way earlier and named it dvfs-method but probably putting this into the /cpus/ node is far better. But then Sudeep asked to utilize compatible property only..
Are you fine with the name here? "dvfs-method"
That's right, I don't like driver specific method in the cpu node as you initially did. But if it's a property in the chosen node (where we usually put the Linux specific properties), I am fine with that as Arnd has illustrated in his patch.
I would prefer the /cpus node over the /chosen node because the former describes the hardware while the latter is supposed to be user-settable (on real open-firmware at least). But I think either one is better than using the / node compatible string.
How about a "linux,cpu-dvfs-method" property in the root node? Would that work better for you than a "linux,dvfs-method" in the "/cpus" node?
Arnd