From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/8] arm64: dts: sdm845: Add rpmh powercontroller node Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 11:36:29 -0600 Message-ID: <20181207173629.GA4443@bogus> References: <20181204052119.806-1-rnayak@codeaurora.org> <20181204052119.806-8-rnayak@codeaurora.org> <154396536335.88331.9265777410326926096@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> 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: Rajendra Nayak Cc: Stephen Boyd , andy.gross@linaro.org, collinsd@codeaurora.org, mka@chromium.org, ulf.hansson@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 12:37:29PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > > On 12/5/2018 4:46 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2018-12-03 21:21:18) > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > > > index b72bdb0a31a5..a6d0cd8d17b0 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > > > @@ -1324,6 +1325,56 @@ > > > compatible = "qcom,sdm845-rpmh-clk"; > > > #clock-cells = <1>; > > > }; > > > + > > > + rpmhpd: power-controller { > > > + compatible = "qcom,sdm845-rpmhpd"; > > > + #power-domain-cells = <1>; > > > + operating-points-v2 = <&rpmhpd_opp_table>; > > > + }; > > > + > > > + rpmhpd_opp_table: opp-table { > > > > This table should go somewhere else? I don't understand why it's in the > > rpmh node because it's not an rpmh device. Does it go to the root? Or > > does it go under rpmhpd itself? I'm not sure. > > I could move it to root perhaps, we seem to do that atleast in the case of > GPU. The power domain bindings (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt) > seem to suggest it can't be under the power-controller node itself. Why not? I don't see anything forbidding that like already having some other type of child nodes. It's a little weird to have operating-points-v2 point to a child node, but that will still work. Rob