From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] dt-bindings: power: Add qcom rpm power domain
 driver bindings
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:55:05 +0530
Message-ID: <271db7b1-f65b-f42d-b00b-9362429b3749@codeaurora.org>
References: <20180627045234.27403-1-rnayak@codeaurora.org>
 <20180627045234.27403-3-rnayak@codeaurora.org>
 <20180703223554.GA32313@rob-hp-laptop>
 <20180704055757.4li26b6poxllmh2k@vireshk-i7>
 <1463d24b-481d-eecd-9e44-e7a5a993e5fc@codeaurora.org>
 <CAL_JsqJe+m4hD3nxQDjOT1JzRoSMXppy1r6APV1w=NtgCr-X_A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqJe+m4hD3nxQDjOT1JzRoSMXppy1r6APV1w=NtgCr-X_A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

Hi Rob,

[]...
>>>>> +   rpmhpd_opp_table: opp-table {
>>>>> +           compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level";
>>>>> +
>>>>> +           rpmhpd_opp_ret: opp1 {
>>>>> +                   qcom,level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_RETENTION>;
>>>>> +           };
>>>>
>>>> I don't see the point in using the OPP binding here when you aren't
>>>> using *any* of the properties from it.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's the case for now. But there are cases (as Stephen
>>> mentioned earlier [1]) where the voltage values (and maybe other
>>> values like current, etc) would be known and filled in DT. And that's
>>> why we all agreed to use OPP tables for PM domains as well, as these
>>> are really "operating performance points" of these PM domains.
>>
>> Rob, are you fine with these bindings then?
> 
> Okay, my only thought is whether we should just use 'reg' here, or do
> we need 'level' for anything else and should make it common?

I am not quite sure I understood what you are suggesting here :(