On 22/08/13 16:50, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 04:32:10PM +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
>> On 22/08/13 12:59, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:48:12PM +0100, Stephen Warren wrote:
[...]
>>>>
>>>> I'd suggest/bike-shed that operating-points-device is not the correct
>>>> property name; it somehow implies that the other device actively defines
>>>> the OPPs for this device, rather than just happening to have the same
>>>> OPPs. Perhaps "operating-points-identical-to"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd rather not have properties that point elsewhere and say "treat me
>>> the same as this node". I'd rather we have common properties as
>>> described above.
>>>
>> Agreed, but for platforms with multiple CPU clusters, since we have only
>> one /cpus node, we ned to have table node which is arguable if node has
>> represent a device(as mentioned above)
>
> I agree that this seems wasteful of space, but I really don't think that
> pointing at another device you want the OPPs of is the best way of
> describing the linkage, and I suspect we'll get all sorts of stupid bugs
> resulting from that style of binding.
>
> Consider the following (properties trimmed for brevity):
>
> cpus {
> cpu0: cpu@0 {
> operating-points-identical-to = <&cpu1>;
> };
> cpu1: cpu@1 {
> operating-points = <0 100>,
> <23 47>,
> <62 970>;
> }
> };
>
> If we boot a UP kernel on the above, I assume we won't read the info for
> cpu1, and thus we won't get operating points info for cpu0. Worse, what
> if cpu1 has status="disabled"? Does that make its OPP table invalid?
> What if the bootloader drops cpu1?
>
Another question :), does status property dictate the validity of the
other properties in the node(not specific to above example, in general)?
But I agree that this indirect linkage is broken as boot-loaders can
drop the cpu node holding OPP.
IMO fallback method would be reasonable(and much cleaner compared to a
separate node) if it can even accommodate multiple cpu clusters.
> I really don't like indirecting linkage to a property through an
> arbitrary node, simply because it happened to have the same property. It
> creates an artificial depdendency that will lead to problems.
>
I totally agree on this.
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
