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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:43:10 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.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

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 5:25 AM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
> 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 :(

You could use the  'reg' property instead of 'qcom,level'. Any reason
not to do that?

Alternatively, would 'level' be something useful in other situations
and should not be QCom specific?

Rob