From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
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 2683BCD8CAC
	for <linux-pm@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:24:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S231231AbjJJQYC (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-pm@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 10 Oct 2023 12:24:02 -0400
Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60124 "EHLO
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S233532AbjJJQXy (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 10 Oct 2023 12:23:54 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172])
        by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BF697
        for <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:23:51 -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 CE8DEC15;
        Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:24:31 -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 09E0D3F7A6;
        Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date:   Tue, 10 Oct 2023 17:23:47 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        "cristian.marussi@arm.com" <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
        "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ranjani Vaidyanathan <ranjani.vaidyanathan@nxp.com>,
        Glen G Wienecke <glen.wienecke@nxp.com>,
        Nikunj Kela <nkela@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: Question regarding scmi_perf_domain.c
Message-ID: <20231010162347.d7ekxeuw2gepk27d@bogus>
References: <DU0PR04MB9417DE145496DC03579F50E488CDA@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20231010105503.jwrmjahuvcjgwtk5@bogus>
 <CAPDyKFqEpnKeF7Yuvv_a+=Kqs=pNU_kM59EqWdpCniHrY_373A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DU0PR04MB941755466872E84217378F6388CDA@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20231010130054.ieylxocuapugajif@bogus>
 <DU0PR04MB94177FFEAA62AC27839D826F88CDA@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20231010133059.57rs52qedrc5mxfr@bogus>
 <DU0PR04MB9417D01218CA4803D00545A788CDA@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20231010145137.fyxjlsj5qq3elq7l@bogus>
 <CAPDyKFrBXz1MrqqcRaSf3dkO5YByxehi96TO9F=5b43_LAqRSg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFrBXz1MrqqcRaSf3dkO5YByxehi96TO9F=5b43_LAqRSg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-pm.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 05:23:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:

[...]

>
> Another option could be to discuss how we can extend the SCMI spec
> and/or the DT bindings, to optionally allow us to use a 1:1 mapping of
> an SCMI perf/power domain.
>

Well I leave that to the spec author and relevant discussion there as
what are the merits in doing so.

In absence of such a support in the spec, we need to support what we have
even after we get that in the spec to support all the platforms without
it. So, IMO it is better to look at that angle as well.

--
Regards,
Sudeep