From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
nm@ti.com, sboyd@codeaurora.org,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
robh@kernel.org, d-gerlach@ti.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:34:40 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161110040440.GA11670@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161109145828.p6vvsd5bygkzjcmh@sirena.org.uk>
On 09-11-16, 14:58, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:02:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> > + Entries for multiple regulators shall be provided in the same field separated
> > + by angular brackets <>. The OPP binding doesn't provide any provisions to
> > + relate the values to their power supplies or the order in which the supplies
> > + need to be configured.
>
> I don't understand how this works. If we have an unordered list of
> values to set for regulators how will we make sense of them?
The platform driver is responsible to identify the order and pass it on to the
OPP core. And the platform driver needs to have that hard coded.
If we want to identify the entries for regulators just by parsing the DT then we
would need another field in the OPP table which I added earlier.
Something like this:
cpu0_opp_table: opp_table0 {
compatible = "operating-points-v2";
+ supply-names = "vcc0", "vcc1", "vcc2";
opp-shared;
opp00 {
Will that be acceptable ?
> > - cpu-supply = <&cpu_supply0>, <&cpu_supply1>, <&cpu_supply2>;
> > + vcc0-supply = <&cpu_supply0>;
> > + vcc1-supply = <&cpu_supply1>;
> > + vcc2-supply = <&cpu_supply2>;
>
> This change doesn't seem to correspond to the documentation change.
This rectifies the incorrect binding previously added to the example, which I
realized to be incorrect only while attempting to code for it. And so it brings
the example on the same state as the documentation now.
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-10 4:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-26 6:32 [PATCH V3 0/9] PM / OPP: Multiple regulator support Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:32 ` [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device Viresh Kumar
2016-11-09 14:58 ` Mark Brown
2016-11-10 4:04 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2016-11-10 16:36 ` Mark Brown
2016-11-10 18:09 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-10 22:51 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-11-11 3:11 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-15 1:59 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-15 2:13 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-11-15 3:31 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-15 18:56 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-11-15 22:11 ` Dave Gerlach
2016-11-16 3:18 ` Viresh Kumar
[not found] ` <20161115185645.GA25626-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-16 3:08 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:32 ` [PATCH V3 2/9] PM / OPP: Don't use OPP structure outside of rcu protected section Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:32 ` [PATCH V3 3/9] PM / OPP: Manage supply's voltage/current in a separate structure Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:32 ` [PATCH V3 4/9] PM / OPP: Pass struct dev_pm_opp_supply to _set_opp_voltage() Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:33 ` [PATCH V3 5/9] PM / OPP: Add infrastructure to manage multiple regulators Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:33 ` [PATCH V3 6/9] PM / OPP: Separate out _generic_opp_set_rate() Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:33 ` [PATCH V3 7/9] PM / OPP: Allow platform specific custom set_opp() callbacks Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:33 ` [PATCH V3 8/9] PM / OPP: Don't WARN on multiple calls to dev_pm_opp_set_regulators() Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:33 ` [PATCH V3 9/9] PM / OPP: Don't assume platform doesn't have regulators Viresh Kumar
2016-11-10 1:17 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-11-10 5:16 ` [PATCH V4 " Viresh Kumar
2016-11-02 4:51 ` [PATCH V3 0/9] PM / OPP: Multiple regulator support Viresh Kumar
2016-11-10 1:19 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-11-10 4:11 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-15 22:10 ` [TEST PATCH] WIP: Test OPP multi regulator support with ti-opp-domain driver Dave Gerlach
2016-11-16 1:38 ` kbuild test robot
2016-11-16 2:01 ` kbuild test robot
2016-11-16 3:27 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-18 3:06 ` [PATCH V3 0/9] PM / OPP: Multiple regulator support Viresh Kumar
2016-11-18 10:43 ` Mark Brown
2016-11-22 3:49 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-22 18:41 ` Mark Brown
2016-11-23 3:46 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-23 12:29 ` Mark Brown
2016-11-24 5:07 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-24 10:19 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161110040440.GA11670@vireshk-i7 \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=d-gerlach@ti.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nm@ti.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vireshk@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).