On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 July 2014 11:47, Olof Johansson olof@lixom.net wrote:
Why complicate it by using two properties?
If there is no property, then the CPUs are assumed to be controlled independently.
if there is a clock-master = <phandle> property, then that points at the cpu that is the main one controlling clock for the group.
There's really no need to label the master -- it will be the only one with incoming links but nothing outgoing. And a master without slaves is an independently controlled cpu so you should be fine in that aspect too.
I thought so earlier, but then I remembered something I read long back. Don't remember which thread now, but I *might* be wrong..
"Bindings are like APIs and new bindings shouldn't break existing stuff.."
And:
If there is no property, then the CPUs are assumed to be controlled independently.
seems to break the existing API.
What is the current API that is being broken, in your opinion?
But if that isn't the case, the bindings are very simple & clear to handle. Diff for new bindings:
It's somewhat confusing to see a diff to the patch instead of a new version. It seems to remove the cpu 0 entry now?
-Olof