Re: Question regarding scmi_perf_domain.c

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 01:02:01PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 12:55, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 10:30:17AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > Hi Ulf,
> > >
> > > I just see you wrote scmi_perf_domain.c, just wonder this driver is only
> > > for devices, not support arm cores, right?
> > >
> > > For ARM cores, we still need scmi_cpufreq.c for performance settings,
> > > right?
> >
> > Sorry if I wasn't clear. The reason I mentioned it in private is that
> > we now support the power domain bindings in the scmi-cpufreq.c as you
> > were little bit nervous to use the clock bindings(though they work just
> > fine, I understand the possible confusion with the clock protocol).
>
> Right, good point!
>
> I think we discussed earlier whether we should deprecate the use of
> the clock bindings. Maybe that's a good idea, to indicate that we
> prefer the power-domain bindings when going forward?

Yes we could do that. I prefer to have some example in the actual DTS
files before we can think of deprecating it. I need to get around, test
and push the change to switch from clock to power domain bindings on
Juno for example.

--
Regards,
Sudeep