Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

[Vincent Guittot]

On 22 November 2016 at 19:12, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
>>> > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive
>>> > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
>>> >
>>> > The power-domains until now were only concentrating on the idle state
>>> > management of the device and this needs to change in order to reuse the
>>> > infrastructure of power domains for active state management.
>>> >
>>> > This patch introduces a new optional property for the consumers of the
>>> > power-domains: domain-performance-state.
>>> >
>>> > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different
>>> > domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their
>>> > required domain performance state in their node directly. Otherwise the
>>> > consumers can define their requirements with help of other
>>> > infrastructure, for example the OPP table.
>>> >
>>> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > ---
>>> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 6 ++++++
>>> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>> >
>>> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>> > index e1650364b296..db42eacf8b5c 100644
>>> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>> > @@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ domain provided by the 'parent' power controller.
>>> >   - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of
>>> >                     the power controller specified by phandle.
>>> >
>>> > +Optional properties:
>>> > +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
>>> > +  performance level (of the parent domain) required by the consumer for its
>>> > +  working. The integer value '1' represents the lowest performance level and the
>>> > +  highest value represents the highest performance level.
>>>
>>> How does one come up with the range of values?
>>
>> Why would we need a range here? The value here represents the minimum 'state'
>> and the assumption is that everything above that level would be fine. So the
>> range is automatically: domain-performance-state -> MAX.
>>
>>> It seems like you are
>>> just making up numbers. Couldn't the domain performance level be an OPP
>>> in the sense that it is a collection of clock frequencies and voltage
>>> settings?
>>
>> The clock is going to be handled by the device itself (at least for the case we
>> have today) and the performance-state lies with the power-domain which is
>> configured separately. If the performance level includes both clk and voltage,
>> then why would we need to show the clock rates in the DT ? Wouldn't a
>> performance level be enough in such cases?
>
> I think the question is: what does the performance-level of a domain
> actually mean?  Or, what are the units?
>
> Depending on the SoC, there's probably a few things this could mean.  It
> might mean is that an underlying bus/interconnect can be configured to
> guarantee a specific bandwidth or throughput.  That in turn might mean
> that that bus/interconnect might have to be set at a specific
> frequency/voltage.
>
> In your case, IIUC, you're just passing some magic value to some
> firmware running on a micro-controller, but under the hood that uC is
> probably configuring a frequency/voltage someplace.

In the case described by Viresh, it's only about setting the voltage
of a power domain that is shared between different devices. these
devices wants to run at different frequency (set by the devices) but
we have to select a Volateg value that will match with the constraint
of all devices (in this case the highest voltage)

>
> So, if we're going to have a generic DT binding for this, it needs to be
> something that's useful on platforms that are not using magic numbers
> managed by a uC as well.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>