From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0AD3CD80D0 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 13:03:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231950AbjJJNDC (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:03:02 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36636 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231997AbjJJNCl (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:02:41 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A07A199 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE96D1FB; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (e103737-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.197.49]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 427D03F762; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:02:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 14:02:22 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Peng Fan Cc: Ulf Hansson , Sudeep Holla , "cristian.marussi@arm.com" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Ranjani Vaidyanathan , Glen G Wienecke Subject: Re: Question regarding scmi_perf_domain.c Message-ID: <20231010130222.ftd76mblcaojmcxb@bogus> References: <20231010105503.jwrmjahuvcjgwtk5@bogus> <20231010124840.ztzsu5swqd2ez377@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 12:53:58PM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > Hi Sudeep > > > Subject: Re: Question regarding scmi_perf_domain.c > > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 01:02:01PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 12:55, Sudeep Holla > > 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. > > Before that, I think we need think about whether it is possible to use > a property saying perf-domain, using power domains implies a restriction > that power domain is same as perf domain, but the spec not say that. > Just responded on the other thread, lets continue the discussion there to keep the related discussions together there. -- Regards, Sudeep