From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755264AbcFQIi3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2016 04:38:29 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:48319 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752337AbcFQIi1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2016 04:38:27 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] firmware: scpi: add device power domain support using genpd To: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" References: <1466073481-697-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1466073481-697-4-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1466099274.20208.65.camel@linaro.org> <5762E8F1.1040401@arm.com> <1466151552.2841.10.camel@linaro.org> Cc: Sudeep Holla , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ulf Hansson , Mathieu Poirier , Suzuki K Poulose , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Kevin Hilman From: Sudeep Holla Organization: ARM Message-ID: <5763B6FF.2040105@arm.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:38:23 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1466151552.2841.10.camel@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 17/06/16 09:19, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 18:59 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> On 16/06/16 18:47, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: >>> On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 11:38 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> [...] >>>> +enum scpi_power_domain_state { >>>> + SCPI_PD_STATE_ON = 0, >>>> + SCPI_PD_STATE_OFF = 3, >>>> +}; >>> >>> The SCPI doc defines the meaning of these numbers (0 and 3) in the 'Juno >>> specifics' chapter. So does these values need to come from device-tree >>> to allow for other hardware or SCP implementations? >>> >> >> Ah unfortunately true :(. I had not noticed that. But I would like to >> check if this can be made as part of the standard protocol. Adding such >> details to DT seems overkill and defeat of the whole purpose of the >> standard protocol. > > Well. it seems to me the 'standard protocol' is whatever the current > implementation of ARM's closed source SCP firmware is. It also seems to > me that people are making things up as they go along, without a clue as > to how to make things generic, robust and future proof. Totally agree. There's an effort to come up with more standard version of this involving partners/users soon. It's still under discussion and the aim is to make it as good as PSCI. Let's see where it goes... -- Regards, Sudeep