[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170324154451.ljszby3mhc4rlgnw@rob-hp-laptop>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:44:51 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
lina.iyer@...aro.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for
power-domains
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?
> 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>;
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.
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists