[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201021181951.xu2igea2qbca3alf@bogus>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 19:19:51 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm,scmi: Do not use clocks for SCMI
performance domains
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:20:27AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 3:37 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
> >
[...]
>
> When is this not 1 (IOW, you only need this if variable)? How would it
> be used outside SCMI (given it has a generic name)?
>
> > +
> > +* Property arm,scmi-perf-domain
>
[...]
> Really though, why can't you give SCMI a CPUs MPIDR and get its domain?
>
Now I remembered why we can't use MPIDR. The spec talks about perf domains
for devices in generic. CPU is just a special device. We will still need
a mechanism to get device performance domain. So MPIDR idea was dropped to
keep it uniform across all the devices.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists