[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170509052921.GA15657@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:59:21 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
ulf.hansson@...aro.org, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.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 V6 1/9] PM / OPP: Introduce "power-domain-opp" property
On 08-05-17, 14:57, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Yes, I followed the thread and figured that out. But Rajendra also
> raised "What if the microcontroller firmware maps the performance-index
> to voltage but expects linux to scale the frequency? There is no way to
> specify a performance-index *and* a frequency for a OPP now I guess? So
> this needs to be addressd now IIUC.
No, he misunderstood it. He was saying that the domain needs a performance-index
and the device needs freq-scaling, how do we do that? He thought that there will
be just one OPP table for the device here, but we will actually have two and
that would work.
> So as Kevin pointed out, we need to experiment and look at all
> possibilities before finalizing the bindings. Better to have examples
> for all these and describe how bindings are be used including how to
> distinguish between these use-case from the bindings if it's not implicit.
Yeah, I have some doubts on how we are going to implement that and looking for
more input from him.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists