From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/9] PM / Domains: Use OPP tables for power-domains Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:45:16 +0100 Message-ID: <153166dc-d010-fe63-c99e-b2efac5432db@arm.com> References: <5619ac7777689f282f8aafabbde22d71b46a979b.1490001099.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <6f72cb6e-2d8c-4e68-59cd-67f40e8c3118@arm.com> <20170413060342.GO5910@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170413060342.GO5910@vireshk-i7> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Sudeep Holla , Rafael Wysocki , ulf.hansson-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Kevin Hilman , linaro-kernel-cunTk1MwBs8s++Sfvej+rw@public.gmane.org, linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Vincent Guittot , Stephen Boyd , Nishanth Menon , robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, lina.iyer-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, rnayak-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 13/04/17 07:03, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12-04-17, 17:58, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> >> On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> The OPP table bindings contains all the necessary fields to support >>> power-domains now. Update the power-domain bindings to allow >>> "operating-points-v2" to be present within the power-domain node. >>> >>> Also allow consumer devices, that don't use OPP tables, to specify the >>> parent power-domain's performance level using the >>> "domain-performance-state" property. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt >>> index 723e1ad937da..5db112fa5d7c 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt >>> @@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ phandle arguments (so called PM domain specifiers) of length specified by the >>> domain's idle states. In the absence of this property, the domain would be >>> considered as capable of being powered-on or powered-off. >>> >>> +- operating-points-v2 : This describes the performance states of a PM domain. >>> + Refer to ../opp/opp.txt for more information. >>> + >>> Example: >>> >>> power: power-controller@12340000 { >>> @@ -118,4 +121,43 @@ The node above defines a typical PM domain consumer device, which is located >>> inside a PM domain with index 0 of a power controller represented by a node >>> with the label "power". >>> >>> +Optional properties: >>> +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum >>> + power-domain performance level required by the consumer device. The integer >>> + value '0' represents the lowest performance level and the higher values >>> + represent higher performance levels. The value of "domain-performance-state" >>> + field should match the "domain-performance-state" field of one of the OPP >>> + nodes in the parent power-domain's OPP table. >>> + >>> + >>> + >>> +Example: >>> + >>> + domain_opp_table: opp_table { >>> + compatible = "operating-points-v2"; >>> + >>> + opp@1 { >>> + domain-performance-state = <1>; >>> + opp-microvolt = <975000 970000 985000>; >>> + }; >>> + opp@2 { >>> + domain-performance-state = <2>; >>> + opp-microvolt = <1075000 1000000 1085000>; >>> + }; >>> + }; >>> + >>> + parent: power-controller@12340000 { >>> + compatible = "foo,power-controller"; >>> + reg = <0x12340000 0x1000>; >>> + #power-domain-cells = <0>; >>> + operating-points-v2 = <&domain_opp_table>; >> >> As mentioned in the other email, it would be good to consider >> scalability with multiple power domains in a PM domain provider. >> i.e case of #power-domain-cells = <1> or more > > Yeah, but that isn't supported for devices today. So no point > considering that today. > Do you mean we don't support power controllers with multiple power domains ? If yes, we do support #power-domain-cells=<1 or more> clearly from the binding and this change simple doesn't scale with such power controllers/power-domain providers. -- Regards, Sudeep -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html