From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/7] ARM: dts: Exynos542x/5800: add CPU OPP properties
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:08:02 +0530
Message-ID: <20151211043802.GP3612@ubuntu>
References: <1449766729-435-1-git-send-email-b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
 <1449766729-435-4-git-send-email-b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
 <20151211031646.GL3612@ubuntu>
 <566A4231.9050608@osg.samsung.com>
 <20151211033253.GN3612@ubuntu>
 <566A4A60.8060402@samsung.com>
 <20151211041349.GO3612@ubuntu>
 <566A4E82.3040203@samsung.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <566A4E82.3040203@samsung.com>
Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>, Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@samsung.com>, Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>, Mike Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>, Ben Gamari <ben@smart-cactus.org>, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>, Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@math.uni-bielefeld.de>, Anand Moon <linux.amoon@gmail.com>, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>, Andreas Faerber <afaerber@suse.de>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On 11-12-15, 13:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> We had such configuration before (before df09df6f9ac3). I don't see any
> benefit in what you described. Where is the "thing" to be fixed? It is
> mixed up. The contiguous ordering is easier to read and more natural.

This is what you are doing today (keeping on one CPU per cluster to
simplify it):

		cpu0: cpu@0 {
			device_type = "cpu";
			compatible = "arm,cortex-a15";
			reg = <0x0>;
			clock-frequency = <1800000000>;
			cci-control-port = <&cci_control1>;
		};

		cpu4: cpu@100 {
			device_type = "cpu";
			compatible = "arm,cortex-a7";
			reg = <0x100>;
			clock-frequency = <1000000000>;
			cci-control-port = <&cci_control0>;
		};


Then you overwrite it with:

                &cpu0 {
                	device_type = "cpu";
                	compatible = "arm,cortex-a7";
                	reg = <0x100>;
                	clock-frequency = <1000000000>;
                	cci-control-port = <&cci_control0>;
                };
                
                &cpu4 {
                	device_type = "cpu";
                	compatible = "arm,cortex-a15";
                	reg = <0x0>;
                	clock-frequency = <1800000000>;
                	cci-control-port = <&cci_control1>;
                };


Don't you think this isn't the right way of solving problems?

The DT overwrite feature isn't there to do such kind of stuff, though
it doesn't stop you from doing that.

Either you should keep separate paths for both the SoCs, or can solve
it the way I suggested earlier.

This came up because in the current series you are doing this:

		cpu0: cpu@0 {
			compatible = "arm,cortex-a15";
                        operating-points-v2 = <&cpu0_opp_table>;
		};

		cpu4: cpu@100 {
			device_type = "cpu";
			compatible = "arm,cortex-a7";
                        operating-points-v2 = <&cpu1_opp_table>;
		};


Then you overwrite it with:

                &cpu0 {
                	compatible = "arm,cortex-a7";
                        operating-points-v2 = <&cpu1_opp_table>;
                };
                
                &cpu4 {
                	compatible = "arm,cortex-a15";
                        operating-points-v2 = <&cpu0_opp_table>;
                };
-- 
viresh