linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] dt-bindings: power: Add qcom rpm power domain driver bindings

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1463d24b-481d-eecd-9e44-e7a5a993e5fc@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 30 Aug 2018 12:01:42 +0530
From:   Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     sboyd@...nel.org, andy.gross@...aro.org, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
        collinsd@...eaurora.org, mka@...omium.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] dt-bindings: power: Add qcom rpm power domain
 driver bindings



On 7/4/2018 11:27 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 03-07-18, 16:35, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> +qcom,level values specified in the OPP tables for RPMh power domains
>>> +should use the RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_* constants from
>>> +<dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h>
>>> +
>>> +	rpmhpd: power-controller {
>>> +		compatible = "qcom,sdm845-rpmhpd";
>>> +		#power-domain-cells = <1>;
>>> +		operating-points-v2 = <&rpmhpd_opp_table>;
>>> +	};
>>> +
>>> +	rpmhpd_opp_table: opp-table {
>>> +		compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level";
>>> +
>>> +		rpmhpd_opp_ret: opp1 {
>>> +			qcom,level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_RETENTION>;
>>> +		};
>>
>> I don't see the point in using the OPP binding here when you aren't
>> using *any* of the properties from it.
> 
> Yeah, that's the case for now. But there are cases (as Stephen
> mentioned earlier [1]) where the voltage values (and maybe other
> values like current, etc) would be known and filled in DT. And that's
> why we all agreed to use OPP tables for PM domains as well, as these
> are really "operating performance points" of these PM domains.

Rob, are you fine with these bindings then?
If so, can we please have your reviewed-by?