From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Cousson, Benoit" Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] OMAP3: powerdomain data: add voltage domains Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:09:35 +0100 Message-ID: <4D89100F.1000909@ti.com> References: <1300493932-17362-1-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <1300493932-17362-8-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:60174 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932216Ab1CVVJf (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:09:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Walmsley Cc: "Hilman, Kevin" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" On 3/22/2011 8:30 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > a couple of comments below.. > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> Add voltage domain name to indicate which voltagedomain each >> powerdomain is in. A missing voltage domain name means that that >> powerdomain is not in one of the currently scalable voltage domains. > > Before you add these, you might want to change the voltagedomain names for > OMAP3. I don't think it's correct to refer to the VDD1 voltagedomain as > "mpu" since it includes both the MPU and IVA. Probably best to use simply > "vdd1" and "vdd2" since that is the historical usage. Yes, but it was confusing, hence the change on OMAP4. "core" is fine and better that vdd2, maybe "mpu_iva" will be better for vdd1. Moreover, it will be consistent will all the OMAP4+ chips. [...] >> static struct powerdomain dpll1_pwrdm = { > > These DPLL powerdomains should have voltagedomains also. DPLL1 is in > VDD1, I believe. I think the rest are in VDD2. DPLL1 (MPU) & DPLL2 (IVA) are inside vdd1, DPLL3, 4 & 5 are inside the core (vdd2) Benoit