On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:20:18AM +0000, Javi Merino wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 08:54:33AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Cc'ing Javi (which you should have as he wrote the power-thing for > > cpu-cooling). > > > > On 05-11-15, 19:10, dawei chien wrote: > > > This is because our platform currently only support mt8173_cpufreq.c, so > > > that I only add static power model for our owner IC. > > > > Bindings are (normally) supposed to be general than a platform > > specific. > > > > > Please understanding that I wouldn't give a DT binding document since I > > > will remove static power table on next version, but I can try to explain > > > it. > > > > Then just don't add things in the first place. > > > > > As far as I know, static power is somewhat leakage of CPU clusters, so > > > that we hardly to find a formula, which can suitable all kinds of CPUs > > > since leakage is different. In ARM IPA framework, static power only need > > > to be defined by who register cpufreq_power_cooling_register. The > > > voltage/power table is just one way to present leakage power of CPUs. > > > > The bindings don't fix the values for static power, but just provides > > a field for platforms to use. Everyone can then send its own power > > figures. Why do you thing it can't be generalized? > > The way they are described here is useful only for this platform, but > it's not generic. It only takes into account voltage as (I assume) > it's the only variable that affects it in this implementation. A > generalized version of the static power should take into account the > temperature and the idle state. Still, why would we have one binding to describe static power per platform? I would prefer we go towards a generalized binding description. If temperature is not needed on all platforms, make it an optional property. BR, Eduardo Valentin -- 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
