Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 21 Jul 2023 12:59:17 +0100 | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] cpufreq: scmi: Add support to parse domain-id using #power-domain-cells |
| |
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 17:24, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 04:17:36PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > The performance domain-id can be described in DT using the power-domains > > > property or the clock property. The latter is already supported, so let's > > > add support for the power-domains too. > > > > > > > How is this supposed to work for the CPUs ? The CPU power domains are > > generally PSCI on most of the platforms and the one using OSI explicitly > > need to specify the details while ones using PC will not need to. Also they > > can never be performance domains too. So I am not sure if I am following this > > correctly. > > Your concerns are certainly correct, I completely forgot about this. > We need to specify what power-domain index belongs to what, by using > power-domain-names in DT. So a CPU node, that has both psci for power > and scmi for performance would then typically look like this: > > power-domains = <&CPU_PD0>, <&scmi_dvfs 4>; > power-domain-names = "psci", "scmi"; > > I will take care of this in the next version - and thanks a lot for > pointing this out!
Yes something like this will work. Just curious will this impact the idle paths ? By that I mean will the presence of additional domains add more work or will they be skipped as early as possible with just one additional check ?
-- Regards, Sudeep
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |