From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/8] dt-bindings: Introduce interconnect binding Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:48:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20180926144830.GB25838@e107155-lin> References: <20180831140151.13972-1-georgi.djakov@linaro.org> <20180831140151.13972-3-georgi.djakov@linaro.org> <20180925180215.GA12435@bogus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Georgi Djakov Cc: Rob Herring , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, mturquette@baylibre.com, khilman@baylibre.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, skannan@codeaurora.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, seansw@qti.qualcomm.com, daidavid1@codeaurora.org, evgreen@chromium.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, abailon@baylibre.com, maxime.ripard@bootlin.com, arnd@arndb.de, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 05:42:15PM +0300, Georgi Djakov wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Thanks for the comments! > > On 09/25/2018 09:02 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 05:01:45PM +0300, Georgi Djakov wrote: > >> This binding is intended to represent the relations between the interconnect > >> controllers (providers) and consumer device nodes. It will allow creating links > >> between consumers and interconnect paths (exposed by interconnect providers). > > > > As I mentioned in person, I want to see other SoC families using this > > before accepting. They don't have to be ready for upstream, but WIP > > patches or even just a "yes, this works for us and we're going to use > > this binding on X". > > Other than the 3 Qualcomm SoCs (msm8916, msm8996, sdm845) that are > currently using this binding, there is ongoing work from at least two > other vendors that would be using this same binding. I will check on > what is their progress so far. > > > Also, I think the QCom GPU use of this should be fully sorted out. Or > > more generically how this fits into OPP binding which seems to be never > > ending extended... > > I see this as a further step. It could be OPP binding which include > bandwidth values or some separate DT property. Jordan has already > proposed something, do you have any initial comments on that? I am curious as how this fits into new systems which have firmware driven CPUFreq and other DVFS. I would like to avoid using this in such systems and leave it upto the firmware to scale the bus/interconnect based on the other components that are connected to it and active. -- Regards, Sudeep