From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:20:11 +0530 Message-ID: <20170410095011.GH24555@vireshk-i7> References: <20170324154451.ljszby3mhc4rlgnw@rob-hp-laptop> <20170410092515.GF24555@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170410092515.GF24555@vireshk-i7> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring , Kevin Hilman Cc: Rafael Wysocki , ulf.hansson@linaro.org, Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , lina.iyer@linaro.org, rnayak@codeaurora.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Fixing Kevin's email id :( On 10-04-17, 14:55, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 24-03-17, 10:44, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:02:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's > > > better than OPP table for that. > > > > > > This patch allows power-domains to reuse OPP tables to express their > > > active states. The "opp-hz" property isn't a required property anymore > > > as power-domains may not always use them. > > > > Then maybe you shouldn't be trying to make OPP table work here. At that > > point you just need a table of voltage(s) per performance state? > > Because that's what Kevin strongly recommended in the previous > versions. > > @Kevin: Would you like to reply here ? > > > > Add a new property "domain-performance-state", which will contain > > > positive integer values to represent performance levels of the > > > power-domains as described in this patch. > > > > Why not reference the OPP entries from the domain: > > > > performance-states = <&opp1>, <&opp2>; > > Because that would require additional code in the OPP core to parse > these then. Right now it is quite straight forward with the bindings I > presented. > > > Just thinking out loud, not saying that is what you should do. The > > continual evolution of power (management) domain, idle state, and OPP > > bindings is getting tiring. > > I agree :) -- viresh