On Tue, Sep 13 2016 at 11:50 -0600, Brendan Jackman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12 2016 at 18:09, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 12/09/16 17:16, Lina Iyer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12 2016 at 09:19 -0600, Brendan Jackman wrote:
Hi Lina,
Sorry for the delay here, Sudeep and I were both been on holiday last
week.
On Fri, Sep 02 2016 at 21:16, Lina Iyer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02 2016 at 07:21 -0700, Sudeep Holla wrote:
[...]
This version is *not very descriptive*. Also the discussion we had
on v3
version has not yet concluded IMO. So can I take that we agreed on what
was proposed there or not ?
Sorry, this example is not very descriptive. Pls. check the 8916 dtsi
for the new changes in the following patches. Let me know if that makes
sense.
Please add all possible use-cases in the bindings. Though one can refer
the usage examples, it might not cover all usage descriptions. It helps
preventing people from defining their own when they don't see examples.
Again DT bindings are like specifications, it should be descriptive
especially this kind of generic ones.
The not-yet-concluded discussion Sudeep is referring to is at [1].
In that thread we initially proposed the idea of, instead of splitting
state phandles between cpu-idle-states and domain-idle-states, putting
CPUs in their own domains and using domain-idle-states for _all_
phandles, deprecating cpu-idle-states. I've brought this up in other
threads [2] but discussion keeps petering out, and neither this example
nor the 8916 dtsi in this patch series reflect the idea.
Brendan, while your idea is good and will work for CPUs, I do not expect
other domains and possibly CPU domains on some architectures to follow
this model. There is nothing that prevents you from doing this today,
As I understand it your opposition to this approach is this:
There may be devices/CPUs which have idle states which do not constitute
"power off". If we put those devices in their own power domain for the
purpose of putting their (non-power-off) idle state phandles in
domain-idle-states, we are "lying" because no true power domain exists
there.
Am I correct that that's your opposition?
If so, it seems we essentially disagree on the definition of a power
domain, i.e. you define it as a set of devices that are powered on/off
together while I define it as a set of devices whose power states
(including idle states, not just on/off) are tied together. I said
something similar on another thread [1] which died out.
Do you agree that this is basically where we disagree, or am I missing
something else?
[2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg141050.html
Yes, you are right, I disagree with the definition of a domain around a
device. However, as long as you don't force SoC's to define devices in
the CPU PM domain to have their own virtual domains, I have no problem.
You are welcome to define it the way you want for Juno or any other
platform. I don't want that to be the forced and expected out of all
SoCs. All I am saying here is that the current implementation would
handle your case as well.
Thanks,
Lina
you can specify domains around CPUs in your devicetree and CPU PM will
handle the hierarchy. I don't think its fair to force it on all SoCs
using CPU domains.
I disagree. We are defining DT bindings here and it *should* be same for
all the SoC unless there is a compelling reason not to. I am fine if
those reasons are stated and agreed.
This patchset does not restrict you from organizing
the idle states the way you want it. This revision of the series, clubs
CPU and domain idle states under idle-states umbrella. So part of your
requirement is also satisfied.
I will look at the DTS changes in the series. But we *must* have more
description with more examples in the binding document.
You can follow up the series with your new additions, I don't see a
conflict with this change.
If we just need additions, then it should be fine.
--
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
