From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-states binding
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 14:57:02 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170106092702.GH21926@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <586F596C.7000807@codeaurora.org>
On 06-01-17, 14:16, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2016 04:26 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
> > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive
> > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
> >
> > The power-domains until now were only concentrating on the idle state
> > management of the device and this needs to change in order to reuse the
> > infrastructure of power domains for active state management.
> >
> > This patch adds binding to describe the performance states of a power
> > domain.
>
> The bindings would also need to take into account the fact that a device
> could (and is quite often the case with qcom platforms) have 2 separate
> powerdomains, one for idle state management and another to manage active
> states. I guess the below bindings assume that there's just one.
I have answered a similar question here..
https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148067565219477&w=2
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-06 9:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-12 10:56 [PATCH V2 0/2] PM / Domains / OPP: Introduce domain-performance-state binding Viresh Kumar
2016-12-12 10:56 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-states binding Viresh Kumar
2016-12-22 18:34 ` Rob Herring
2017-01-02 10:05 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-01-06 8:46 ` Rajendra Nayak
2017-01-06 9:27 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2017-01-06 10:12 ` Rajendra Nayak
2017-01-06 10:23 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-01-06 10:36 ` Rajendra Nayak
2017-01-06 11:09 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-12-12 10:56 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] PM / OPP: Introduce domain-performance-state binding to OPP nodes Viresh Kumar
2016-12-22 18:14 ` [PATCH V2 0/2] PM / Domains / OPP: Introduce domain-performance-state binding Rob Herring
2017-01-02 10:44 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-01-03 11:07 ` Viresh Kumar
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=20170106092702.GH21926@vireshk-i7 \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=khilman@baylibre.com \
--cc=lina.iyer@linaro.org \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=nm@ti.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=rnayak@codeaurora.org \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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