On 08/01/2013 08:54 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:27:39PM +0100, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 07/31/2013 11:11 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:58:22PM +0100, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 07/31/2013 10:29 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 03:46:34PM +0100, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 07/31/2013 06:14 AM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
On 30/07/13 21:48, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 07/30/2013 01:34 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 07/30/2013 12:00 PM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@xxxxxxx>
If more than one similar devices share the same OPPs, currently we
need to replicate the OPP entries in all the nodes.
Few drivers like cpufreq depend on physical cpu0 node to specify the
OPPs and only that node is referred irrespective of the logical cpu
accessing it. Alternatively to support cpuhotplug path, few drivers
parse all the cpu nodes for OPPs. Instead we can specify the phandle
of the node with which the current node shares the operating points.
This patch adds support to specify the phandle in the operating points
of any device node, where the node specified by the phandle holds the
actual OPPs.
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/opp.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/opp.txt
+Optional properties:
+- operating-points-phandle: phandle to the device node with which this
That's a funny name. Bikeshedding a bit, how about shared-operating-points?
I haven't thought at all about whether this change conceptually makes sense.
They may not really be shared- we could have phandle list even. one
might have optional OPP sets for a chip family that one may - I was
about to suggest something similar to pinctrl
I am not sure if I follow you here, if each chip family has its unique
set of OPPs, why do we need to represent all of them together ?
IIUC you are thinking about having these in include dts file, used by
multiple chip/board dts.
operating-points-names = "default", "performance", "cheapboard-config" ;)
operating-points-0 = <&...>
operating-points-1 = <&...>
operating-points-2 = <&...>
This looks more like a PM policy.
Let me try to explain since SoCs such as OMAP/AM family dont make life
trivial :)..
An legacy example[1][2]
SoC DM explains that the chip is capable of X opps:
opp1, 2 - for all devices
opp1,2, 3 - if efuse bit X@y is set
opp1,2,3,4 - if efuse bit X@y is set AND Board design meets SoC vendors
requirements (including additional features A, B is enabled).
So, the same chip family has a hardware feature - not just as a pm
policy of selecting among a set of OPPs which opp to work on, but the
actual set of OPPs are actually options in themselves that is selected
based on board's SoC selection.
This sounds like we're describing a set of features not applicable to
the device, then removing them, rather than only describing those
features applicable to the device. If you have to probe to figure out
which values in the dt are applicable, I'm not sure I see the benefit of
describing said values in dt.
Device has *options* of operating points sets it can operate at. It is
not like "these are not applicable" for the device.
I don't follow.
In the example above, if efuse bit X@y is not set, opp3 is not
applicable, but we're describing it in dt. It's not an option for the
particular device, yet it appears in the device's dt.
This one is easy - opp_enable/disable as discussed in
http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=137528631125365&w=2 should probably help.
Wrong link? There's no reference to opp_enable or opp_disable...
Darned! sorry about that.. I think this is what I wanted to point yesterday.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=137528603225295&w=2
For opp4, it's even worse, as you're suggesting we describe an option
for the device that requires the driver to use some additional platform
knowledge to come to the conclusion that it cannot use. That sounds like
Precisely.. it wont have that knowledge and should not need that
knowledge. See explanation above.
Specific examples: SoC vendors try to squeeze the max out of the chip,
when voltage values are defined, they need to consider board markets
that they try to address, pricepoints etc.. too many vectors.. not all
board manufacturers care to meet SoC vendor requirements as they may not
care about picking up the full potential of the chip - example -
usecases on OMAP where ARM is seldom used and max DSP is used (video
usecases) and others so they use a high performance chip, refuse to
optimize vdd_mpu rail, dont care too much about higher ARM OPPs. Yeah, I
could always tell them to hand edit the OPP entries and maintain kernel
forks, but that is never the right thing to do.
Sorry, but I still don't follow.
We seem to be going over two cases, which both feel wrong to me:
* One SoC used in multiple boards, where on some boards an OPP cannot be
used because some requirement is not met. In this case, the board's
dts (by including the SoC's dtsi) describes something that's not
necessarily usable, and we seem to have no way to describe in the OPP
table that the OPP is not usable for that board.
not at the moment at least - at least in the way we have described the
OPP in dts today.
* Performance profiles, in which you have a set of OPP tables for
"performance, "low-power", and whatever else. This arbitrary split
seems like a configuration decision rather than a hardware description
unless there is some hard limit that cannot be detected (e.g. the
processor can function at some arbitrary high speed, but becomes hot
enough to melt something, and there's no temperature sensor to handle
this case dynamically).
precisely -> I think I point this out in this thread:
http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=137535932402560&w=2
Have I've misunderstood something?
device knowledge internal to a driver, not how you describe an instance
of a device to an OS.
OPP has never been a device - it is a performance point at which to
operate a device. I am not sure if we are discussing about phandle
definition of OPP is an issue or options of operating-point sets is an
issue now.
Have I misunderstood something here?
Are you suggesting we have OPP tables per board?
Yes, for the reasons I give above. Common OPP tabless can easily be
factored into separate include files to allow for arbitrary composition.
Hmm.. that could be one other way to do it..
DT does have to describe the hardware capability - that was it's entire
intent. operating points are valid configurations where it can be
operated at - and when you have options of configurations you need to
choose from based on the board you are using it on, it still retains
"hardware behavior" aspect.
The dt should describe the particular board you're running on. As I see
it what you're suggesting is equivalent to describing some hardware in
the dt that isn't actually present, then relying on the OS to poke
around somewhere else, figure out that the hardware isn't present, and
then forget that the dt described it.
I will buy that eventual dtb should contain some way to choose the OPP
that the particular board can operate on.
SoC dtsi is what we define, this allows multiple board dts to use them.
the moment we start defining OPPs per board, all mayhem breaks loose.
SoC dtsi provides options for the SoC to be operated upon, it is like
saying I have 10 Uarts, but board dts chooses to enable the ones it
uses. pinctrl we do the same. why cant we do with operating-points as well?
That's a possibility if we define a standard mechanism for stating OPPs
are unusable (rather than having to probe the device to figure that
out).
I did make a proposal here:
http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=137530056230441&w=2
Do you see it making sense, If yes, I can help flesh out the idea with code.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
