[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1466151552.2841.10.camel@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:19:12 +0100
From: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@...aro.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] firmware: scpi: add device power domain support
using genpd
On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 18:59 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
> On 16/06/16 18:47, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 11:38 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > [...]
> >> +enum scpi_power_domain_state {
> >> + SCPI_PD_STATE_ON = 0,
> >> + SCPI_PD_STATE_OFF = 3,
> >> +};
> >
> > The SCPI doc defines the meaning of these numbers (0 and 3) in the 'Juno
> > specifics' chapter. So does these values need to come from device-tree
> > to allow for other hardware or SCP implementations?
> >
>
> Ah unfortunately true :(. I had not noticed that. But I would like to
> check if this can be made as part of the standard protocol. Adding such
> details to DT seems overkill and defeat of the whole purpose of the
> standard protocol.
Well. it seems to me the 'standard protocol' is whatever the current
implementation of ARM's closed source SCP firmware is. It also seems to
me that people are making things up as they go along, without a clue as
to how to make things generic, robust and future proof. Basically,
Status Normal ARM Fucked Up.
--
Tixy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists