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: <271db7b1-f65b-f42d-b00b-9362429b3749@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:55:05 +0530
From:   Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] dt-bindings: power: Add qcom rpm power domain
 driver bindings

Hi Rob,

[]...
>>>>> +   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?
> 
> Okay, my only thought is whether we should just use 'reg' here, or do
> we need 'level' for anything else and should make it common?

I am not quite sure I understood what you are suggesting here :(