lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH 0/5] DVFS in the OPP core
From
Date
Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2019-02-06 22:57:12)
>
> > 3) How do we handle devices that already have power-domains specified in
> > DT? The opp binding for required-opps doesn't let us specify the power
> > domain to target, instead it assumes that whatever power domain is
> > attached to a device is the one that OPP needs to use to change the
> > genpd performance state. Do we need a
> > dev_pm_opp_set_required_opps_name() or something to be explicit about
> > this? Can we have some way for the power domain that required-opps
> > correspond to be expressed in the OPP tables themselves?
>
> I was converting a few more drivers to use the proposed approach in this
> RFC, in order to identify all outstanding issues we need to deal with,
> and specifically for UFS, I end up with this exact scenario where UFS already
> has an existing power domain (gdsc) and I need to add another one (rpmhpd) for
> setting the performance state.
>
> If I use dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() to add the opp table from DT, the opp
> layer assumes its the same device on which it can do a dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state()
> with, however the device that's actually associated with the pm_domain when we
> have multiple power domains is infact the one (dummy) that we create when
> the driver makes a call to dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name/id().
>
> Any thoughts on whats a good way to handle this?
>

Ulf mentioned that we can use dev_pm_opp_set_genpd_virt_dev() for this.
Does that API work here?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-07 20:48    [W:0.110 / U:24.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site