On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote:
A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the node name be:
opp@600000000 {
I thought the @... had a special meaning and we might end up creating some device for the node then? Perhaps I am mistaken.
But then, yeah it will make it more readable as you mentioned.
At least it seems that the assumption is we can store all the possible combinations of OPP values for a particular frequency in the same node. Following this style would make dt compilation fail if two nodes have the same frequency.
Right.
Also, this makes it sound like opp-supported-hw is really just telling us if this is a supported frequency or not for the particular device we're running on.
That's right.
The current wording makes it
Of the commit log ? Or the way the nodes are written?
sound like we could have two OPP nodes with the same frequency but different voltages inside them, which we're trying to discourage by compressing the tables into less nodes.
No no, we can't have two nodes with same frequency.