From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] dt-bindings: power: Add qcom rpm power domain
 driver bindings
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 12:01:42 +0530
Message-ID: <1463d24b-481d-eecd-9e44-e7a5a993e5fc@codeaurora.org>
References: <20180627045234.27403-1-rnayak@codeaurora.org>
 <20180627045234.27403-3-rnayak@codeaurora.org>
 <20180703223554.GA32313@rob-hp-laptop>
 <20180704055757.4li26b6poxllmh2k@vireshk-i7>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180704055757.4li26b6poxllmh2k@vireshk-i7>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: sboyd@kernel.org, andy.gross@linaro.org, ulf.hansson@linaro.org, collinsd@codeaurora.org, mka@chromium.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org



On 7/4/2018 11:27 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 03-07-18, 16:35, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> +qcom,level values specified in the OPP tables for RPMh power domains
>>> +should use the RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_* constants from
>>> +<dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h>
>>> +
>>> +	rpmhpd: power-controller {
>>> +		compatible = "qcom,sdm845-rpmhpd";
>>> +		#power-domain-cells = <1>;
>>> +		operating-points-v2 = <&rpmhpd_opp_table>;
>>> +	};
>>> +
>>> +	rpmhpd_opp_table: opp-table {
>>> +		compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level";
>>> +
>>> +		rpmhpd_opp_ret: opp1 {
>>> +			qcom,level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_RETENTION>;
>>> +		};
>>
>> I don't see the point in using the OPP binding here when you aren't
>> using *any* of the properties from it.
> 
> Yeah, that's the case for now. But there are cases (as Stephen
> mentioned earlier [1]) where the voltage values (and maybe other
> values like current, etc) would be known and filled in DT. And that's
> why we all agreed to use OPP tables for PM domains as well, as these
> are really "operating performance points" of these PM domains.

Rob, are you fine with these bindings then?
If so, can we please have your reviewed-by?