linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] 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, 28 Jul 2015 13:20:27 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, rob.herring@...aro.org
Cc:	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, sre@...nel.org,
	dbaryshkov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt: cpufreq: st: Provide bindings for ST's
 CPUFreq implementation

Cc'ing Rob as well..

On 28-07-15, 08:41, Lee Jones wrote:
> I have two issues with that.  Firstly, although the driver uses the
> OPP API (it also uses the Regulator and Clock API too), it is
> fundamentally a CPUFreq driver, so I think it should have a CPUFreq
> DT entry.  Secondly, if someone doesn't know the history of the
> ST CPUFreq set, they will look here for an accompanying document.  I
> personally wouldn't think to look in power/*opp* for a CPUFreq
> binding.
> 
> Perhaps, as all of the CPUFreq drivers use the OPP API, everything
> should be moved to drivers/base/power or drivers/power?

Okay, looks fine :)

-- 
viresh
--
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/