From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 12:03:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings In-Reply-To: <20150513085528.GA6994@linux> References: <20150512214224.16410.15922@quantum> <20150513085528.GA6994@linux> Message-ID: <20150513110357.GD3066@sirena.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:25:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12-05-15, 14:42, Michael Turquette wrote: > > Quoting Viresh Kumar (2015-04-30 05:07:59) > > > Why should this new binding exist? > The answer to this particular query is perhaps simple, i.e. we have > unsolved problems that we wanted to solve in a generic way. > But probably the bigger question is "Should we really put the OPPs > (new or old bindings) in DT". And also is trying to do this in a completely generic manner the right way of going about things - do we really understand the problem area well enough to create a completely generic solution for all cases, bearing in mind that once things go into a DT binding they become an ABI? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: