[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABymUCNBkr_65JHNVfbUGjxs6rhnj=eUyZ+5j6VtiDwqzLYtcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 17:21:56 +0800
From: Jun Nie <jun.nie@...aro.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: cw00.choi@...sung.com, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OPP: Simplify set_required_opp handling
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> 于2023年2月27日周一 12:23写道:
>
> On 24-02-23, 16:17, Jun Nie wrote:
> > For the opp lib, this is right direction. We still need to find a method to
> > pass devfreq device node to opp lib, just genpd_virt_devs for power domain.
>
> I am not really sure I understood it all. What is "device node" ? DT node or
> struct device ? What exactly do you need ?
Sorry for not expressing it accurately. I should say devfreq devices
pointers, just
devfreq_virt_devs vs genpd_virt_devs. Then you know why I add devfreq-devs
dts nodes below.
>
> > But I am not clear below is the right way yet and this also involves wider
> > changes. Or the opp's owner, devfreq device can be referred via opp lib?
> > If so, we do not need to add devfreq-devs to cpu node at all.
> >
> > cpu1: cpu@101 {
> > compatible = "arm,cortex-a53";
> > device_type = "cpu";
> > power-domains = <&cpr>;
> > power-domain-names = "cpr";
> > devfreq-devs = <&cci>;
> > devfreq-names = "cci";
>
> Why do you need these ?
>
> > operating-points-v2 = <&cluster1_opp_table>;
> > };
> >
> > opp-200000000 {
> > opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <200000000>;
> > required-opps = <&cpr_opp3>, <&cci_opp1>;
>
> This looks fine though.
>
> > };
>
> --
> viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists