Messages in this thread | | | From | Ulf Hansson <> | Date | Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:43:18 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V11 0/7] PM / Domains: Performance state support |
| |
On 11 October 2017 at 09:24, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi, > > This version contains the changes we discussed during Linaro Connect. > > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of > their power domains. The process of configuring the performance state is > pretty much platform dependent and we may need to work with a wide range > of configurables. For some platforms, like Qcom, it can be a positive > integer value alone, while in other cases it can be voltage levels, etc. > > The power-domain framework until now was only designed for the idle > state management of the device and this needs to change in order to > reuse the power-domain framework for active state management of the > devices. > > The first patch updates the genpd framework to supply new APIs to > support active state management and the second patch uses them from the > OPP core. The third patch adds a new API to the OPP core to get > performance state corresponding to OPPs (This should rather come via DT > and would be removed once we have fixed bindings for performance > states). > > Rest of the patches [4-7/7] are included to show how user drivers would > end up using the new APIs and these patches aren't ready to get merged > yet and are marked clearly like that. Moreover some of them may go via > SoC specific trees instead of the PM tree. > > This is currently tested by: > - /me by hacking the kernel a bit with virtual power-domains for the ARM > 64 hikey platform. > - Rajendra Nayak, on msm8996 platform (Qcom) with MMC controller. > > Thanks Rajendra for helping me testing this out. > > I also had a chat with Rajendra and we should be able to get a Qualcomm > specific power domain driver (which uses these changes) in coming weeks. > > I am targeting the first 3 patches for 4.15-rc1, if possible.
I have looked through the series and overall it looks okay to me. I think my comments on patch1 should be rather simple to address - and so I agree that aiming for 4.15rc1 seems like a reasonable plan.
Kind regards Uffe
| |