lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains
    From
    Date


    On 20/04/17 09:23, Ulf Hansson wrote:
    > Viresh, Sudeep,
    >
    > Sorry for jumping in late.
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >>> On the contrary(playing devil's advocate here), we can treat all
    >>> existing regulators alone as OPP then if you strip the voltages and
    >>> treat it as abstract number.
    >>
    >> But then we are going to have lots of platform specific code which
    >> will program the actual hardware, etc. Which is all handled by the
    >> regulator framework. Also note that the regulator core selects the
    >> common voltage selected by all the children, while we want to select
    >> the highest performance point here.
    >
    > If I understand correctly, Sudeep is not convinced that this is about
    > PM domain regulator(s), right?
    >

    No, I am saying that it has to be modeled as regulators or some kind of
    advanced regulators. I am against modeling it as some new feature and
    using similar terminology that are quite close to OPP/CPPC in which case
    it's quite hard not to misunderstand the concepts and eventually use
    these bindings incorrectly.

    > To me there is no doubt, these regulators is exactly the definition of
    > PM domain regulators.
    >

    +1

    > That said, long time ago we have decided PM domain regulator shall be
    > modeled as exactly that. From DT point of view, this means the handle
    > to the PM domain regulator belongs in the node of the PM domain
    > controller - and not in each device's node of those belonging to the
    > PM domain.
    >
    > Isn't that what this discussion really boils down to? Or maybe I am
    > not getting it.
    >

    I completely agree with you on all the above points. I am against the
    performance state terminology. Since the regulators and OPP are already
    defined in the bindings, all we need to explicitly state(if not already)
    is that there are hierarchical.

    --
    Regards,
    Sudeep

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-04-20 11:51    [W:3.307 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site