Re: [PATCH V8 3/3] OPP: Allow "opp-hz" and "opp-microvolt" to contain magic values
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Wed Dec 27 2017 - 23:37:33 EST
On 27-12-17, 15:54, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 26-12-17, 14:29, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 03:51:30PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> > +On some platforms the exact frequency or voltage may be hidden from the OS by
> >> > +the firmware and the "opp-hz" or the "opp-microvolt" properties may contain
> >> > +magic values that represent the frequency or voltage in a firmware dependent
> >> > +way, for example an index of an array in the firmware.
> >> I'm still not convinced this is a good idea.
> > You were kind-of a few days back :)
> > lkml.kernel.org/r/CAL_JsqK-qtAaM_Ou5NtxcWR3F_q=8rMPJUm-VqGtKhbtWe5SAQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Yeah, well that was before Stephen said anything.
> > So here is the deal:
> > - I proposed "domain-performance-state" property for this stuff
> > initially.
> > - But Kevin didn't like that and proposed reusing "opp-hz" and
> > "opp-microvolt", which we all agreed to multiple times..
> > - And we are back to the same discussion now and its painful and time
> > killing for all of us.
> There's bigger issues than where we put magic values as I raised in
> the other patch.
> > TBH, I don't have too strong preferences about any of the suggestions
> > you guys have and I need you guys to tell me what binding changes to
> > do here and I will do that.
> >> If you have firmware
> >> partially managing things, then I think we should have platform specific
> >> bindings or drivers.
> > What about the initial idea then, like "performance-state" for the
> > power domains ? All platforms will anyway replicate that binding only.
> I don't really know. I don't really care either. I'll probably go
> along with what everyone agrees to, but the only one I see any
> agreement from is Ulf. Also, it is pretty vague as to what platforms
> will use this. You claimed you can support QCom scenarios, but there's
> really no evidence that that is true.
Well, I sent out the code few days back based on these bindings and everyone can
see how these bindings will get used now.
> What I don't want to see is this
> merged and then we need something more yet again in a few months for
> another platform.
Sure, I get your concerns.
So what we need now is:
- Stephen to start responding and clarify all the doubts he had as being silent
- Or Rajendra to post patches which can prove that this is usable. The last time
I had a chat with him, he confirmed that he will post patches after 4.15-rc1
and he should have posted them by now, but he didn't :(