Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: x1e80100: Enable cpufreq

[Sibi Sankar]

On 4/3/24 16:50, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 13:10, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 03:20:44PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> > > Enable cpufreq on X1E80100 SoCs through the SCMI perf protocol node.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >   1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi
> > > index 4e0ec859ed61..d1d232cd1f25 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi
> > > @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ CPU0: cpu@0 {
> > >                        compatible = "qcom,oryon";
> > >                        reg = <0x0 0x0>;
> > >                        enable-method = "psci";
> > > +                     clocks = <&scmi_dvfs 0>;
> > >                        next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> > >                        power-domains = <&CPU_PD0>;
> > >                        power-domain-names = "psci";
> >
> >
> > Any reason why you wouldn't want to use the new genpd based perf controls.
> > IIRC it was added based on mainly Qcom platform requirements.
> >
> > -                     clocks = <&scmi_dvfs 0>;
> >                        next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> > -                     power-domains = <&CPU_PD0>;
> > -                     power-domain-names = "psci";
> > +                     power-domains = <&CPU_PD0>, <&scmi_dvfs 0>;
> > +                     power-domain-names = "psci", "perf";
> >
> >
> > And the associated changes in the scmi dvfs node for cells property.
> >
> > This change is OK but just wanted to check the reasoning for the choice.
>
> To me, it seems reasonable to move to the new binding with
> #power-domain-cells for protocol@13. This becomes more future proof,
> as it can then easily be extended to be used beyond CPUs.
>
> That said, I just submitted a patch [1] to update the examples in the
> scmi DT doc to use  #power-domain-cells in favor of #clock-cells. I
> don't know if there is a better way to promote the new bindings?
> Perhaps moving Juno to use this too?
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe

Sudeep/Ulfe,

Thanks I'll move to the new recommendation.

-Sibi

> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240403111106.1110940-1-ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx/