linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] dt: cpufreq: st: Provide bindings for ST's CPUFreq implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:38:56 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	robh@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...inux.com,
	rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, ajitpal.singh@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] dt: cpufreq: st: Provide bindings for ST's CPUFreq
 implementation

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23-06-15, 08:06, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > [Adding Rob]
> > 
> > Rob is not the only DT Maintainer, there are many of them.  The DT
> > list was CC'ed, which they are all part of.  Adding them all
> > separately is not required IMO.
> 
> I didn't Cc him because you missed him, but because we have been
> discussing opp-v2 bindings recently and this was somehow related to
> that. :)

Okay, fair point.

> > > On 22-06-15, 16:43, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > 
> > > At least some description was required here on why you need additional
> > > bindings are what are they.
> > 
> > Sure, I can do that.
> > 
> > > Over that, this patch should have been present before any other
> > > patches using these bindings.
> > 
> > I've never heard that one before, but it's easy to re-order the set.
> 
> I don't know, but it seems obvious to me: Bindings first and then the
> code.

Do you always write your documentation before implementing a
feature?

Surely it goes;
  Requirements Gathering
  Plan and Prepare
  Implement
  Test
  Document
  Deliver

;)

... but as I say, I can re-order if required.  It's really not a problem.

> > > > +Required properties:
> > > > +-------------------
> > > > +- compatible		: Supported values are:
> > > > +				"st,stih407-cpufreq"
> > > 
> > > Nodes for virtual devices aren't allowed in DT.
> > 
> > Then why do Exynos, Spear, HREF and Snowball have CPUFreq nodes?
> > 
> > One rule for one ... ?
> 
> Not really, but I got a bit confused now with your reply.
> 
> So, what I meant when I wrote: "Nodes for virtual devices aren't
> allowed in DT", was that we aren't supposed to do something like:
> 
> cpufreq {
>  ...
> }
> 
> in DT as cpufreq isn't a device here. A CPU is a device and that can
> contain whatever property we feel is reasonable.
> 
> What SPEAr and Exyons did was putting something in the cpu-node. Not a
> node for cpufreq device itself. Couldn't find HREF and snowball's
> bindings though..

That's not what it looks like to me:

git grep -C20 "compatible.*cpufreq" -- arch

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/