Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] dt-bindings: cpufreq: Add binding for NVIDIA Tegra20/30

[Jon Hunter]

On 30/08/2018 20:43, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> Add device-tree binding that describes CPU frequency-scaling hardware
> found on NVIDIA Tegra20/30 SoC's.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  .../cpufreq/nvidia,tegra20-cpufreq.txt        | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/nvidia,tegra20-cpufreq.txt
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/nvidia,tegra20-cpufreq.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/nvidia,tegra20-cpufreq.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..2c51f676e958
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/nvidia,tegra20-cpufreq.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
> +Binding for NVIDIA Tegra20 CPUFreq
> +==================================
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- clocks: Must contain an entry for each entry in clock-names.
> +  See ../clocks/clock-bindings.txt for details.
> +- clock-names: Must include the following entries:
> +  - pll_x: main-parent for CPU clock, must be the first entry
> +  - backup: intermediate-parent for CPU clock
> +  - cpu: the CPU clock

Is it likely that 'backup' will be anything other that pll_p? If not why
not just call it pll_p? Personally, I don't 'backup' to descriptive even
though I can see what you mean.

I can see that you want to make this flexible, but if the likelihood is
that we will just use pll_p then I am not sure it is warranted at this
point.

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic