Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Mon Apr 10 2017 - 05:50:19 EST
Fixing Kevin's email id :(
On 10-04-17, 14:55, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24-03-17, 10:44, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:02:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's
> > > better than OPP table for that.
> > >
> > > This patch allows power-domains to reuse OPP tables to express their
> > > active states. The "opp-hz" property isn't a required property anymore
> > > as power-domains may not always use them.
> >
> > Then maybe you shouldn't be trying to make OPP table work here. At that
> > point you just need a table of voltage(s) per performance state?
>
> Because that's what Kevin strongly recommended in the previous
> versions.
>
> @Kevin: Would you like to reply here ?
>
> > > Add a new property "domain-performance-state", which will contain
> > > positive integer values to represent performance levels of the
> > > power-domains as described in this patch.
> >
> > Why not reference the OPP entries from the domain:
> >
> > performance-states = <&opp1>, <&opp2>;
>
> Because that would require additional code in the OPP core to parse
> these then. Right now it is quite straight forward with the bindings I
> presented.
>
> > Just thinking out loud, not saying that is what you should do. The
> > continual evolution of power (management) domain, idle state, and OPP
> > bindings is getting tiring.
>
> I agree :)
--
viresh