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, 17 Apr 2017 11:03:03 +0530 Message-ID: <20170417053303.GG28191@vireshk-i7> References: <468e756b-7112-4006-b31d-9fcf1c32673d@arm.com> <20170413055049.GN5910@vireshk-i7> <854e3f66-6f93-2b90-14a9-7eaea6a0b74c@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <854e3f66-6f93-2b90-14a9-7eaea6a0b74c@arm.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Rafael Wysocki , ulf.hansson@linaro.org, Kevin Hilman , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , robh+dt@kernel.org, lina.iyer@linaro.org, rnayak@codeaurora.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 13-04-17, 14:43, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Interesting. My understand of power domain and in particular power > domain performance was that it would control both. The abstract number > you introduce would hide clocks and regulators. > > But if the concept treats it just as yet another regulator, we do we > need these at all. Why don't we relate this performance to regulator > values and be done with it ? > > Sorry if I am missing to understand something here. I would look this as > replacement for both clocks and regulators, something similar to ACPI > CPPC. If not, it looks unnecessary to me with the information I have got > so far. I kind of answered that in the other email. Some background may be good here. So Qcom tried to solve all this with virtual regulators, but the problem was that they need to talk in terms of integer values (1, 2, 3..) and not voltages and so they can't use the regulator framework straight away. And so we are doing all this. -- viresh