From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752849AbdK3EsJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Nov 2017 23:48:09 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:35016 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752099AbdK3EsG (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Nov 2017 23:48:06 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaGt/3uu5DHnUtzrDvWsUEpRz1Z6Vz0CHVgfJjERxA4u75imXO/NdVHvyhoxH5CSpxJ/DBFZA== Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:18:00 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Rob Herring Cc: Ulf Hansson , Kevin Hilman , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Vincent Guittot , Rajendra Nayak , Sudeep Holla , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC V7 1/2] OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains Message-ID: <20171130044800.GH11413@vireshk-i7> References: <2b244ea0a09deaf50237fb8b7578273a8284499e.1509453284.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 29-11-17, 10:46, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > +- power-domain-opp: This contains phandle to one of the OPP nodes of the master > > + power domain. This specifies the minimum required OPP of the master domain for > > + the functioning of the device in this OPP (where this property is present). > > + This property can only be set for a device if the device node contains the > > + "power-domains" property. Also, either all or none of the OPP nodes in an OPP > > + table should have it set. > > This is a "this device requires OPP n" property. Couldn't we want this > for cases other than a powerdomain OPP? What if a device has > requirements 2 different OPPs? Hmm, I agree. We can/should make it more generic. > On the flipside, I don't think we want devices picking things like CPU > OPPs and putting policy here. But I'd rather things be extendable than > reviewing yet another OPP property next month. Sure, I would rename this property and make necessary changes to it. -- viresh