Re: [PATCH V6 1/9] PM / OPP: Introduce "power-domain-opp" property

[Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

I had a long chat with Rajendra offline and clarified few things..

On 08-05-17, 11:06, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On 05/08/2017 09:45 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 06-05-17, 11:58, Kevin Hilman wrote:

> >> I had the same question.  Seems the same comment about an abstract
> >> "index" is needed for voltage also.
> > 
> > Why should we do that? Here are the cases that I had in mind while writing this:
> > 
> > - DT only contains the performance-index and nothing else (i.e. voltages aren't
> >   exposed).
> > 
> >   We wouldn't be required to fill the microvolt property as it is optional.
> 
> So the performance-index is specified in opp-hz property?

Yes, but in the OPP table of the power-domain and not the device. The
device can still have its own OPP table with normal freq/voltage
values (for a separate regulator).

> What if the microcontroller firmware maps the performance-index to voltage but
> expects linux to scale the frequency?

As you clarified on the chat, you were talking about the device here.
It isn't a problem as we will have two separate tables here, one for
the device and one for the domain.

-- 
viresh
--
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