From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932411AbdDRQDS (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:03:18 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:58606 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751849AbdDRQDR (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:03:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains To: Viresh Kumar References: <468e756b-7112-4006-b31d-9fcf1c32673d@arm.com> <20170413055049.GN5910@vireshk-i7> <854e3f66-6f93-2b90-14a9-7eaea6a0b74c@arm.com> <20170417053303.GG28191@vireshk-i7> Cc: Sudeep Holla , Rafael Wysocki , ulf.hansson@linaro.org, Kevin Hilman , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , robh+dt@kernel.org, lina.iyer@linaro.org, rnayak@codeaurora.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org From: Sudeep Holla Organization: ARM Message-ID: <2128c09a-0656-0878-c4e7-c327007021c7@arm.com> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:03:11 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170417053303.GG28191@vireshk-i7> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 17/04/17 06:33, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 13-04-17, 14:43, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Interesting. My understand of power domain and in particular power >> domain performance was that it would control both. The abstract number >> you introduce would hide clocks and regulators. >> >> But if the concept treats it just as yet another regulator, we do we >> need these at all. Why don't we relate this performance to regulator >> values and be done with it ? >> >> Sorry if I am missing to understand something here. I would look this as >> replacement for both clocks and regulators, something similar to ACPI >> CPPC. If not, it looks unnecessary to me with the information I have got >> so far. > > I kind of answered that in the other email. > > Some background may be good here. So Qcom tried to solve all this with virtual > regulators, but the problem was that they need to talk in terms of integer > values (1, 2, 3..) and not voltages and so they can't use the regulator > framework straight away. And so we are doing all this. > Was it posted externally ? Was there any objections for that approach ? IMO that's better approach but if I am late to the party, I would like to read through the discussions that happened on it(if any) -- Regards, Sudeep