On 28-02-17, 08:10, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That's what I did in V2, but then I turned it down considering the parent/child > > relationships we may have. > > > > There are multiple cases we can have: > > > > A.) DeviceX ---> Parent-domain-1 (Contains Perfomance states) > > > > B.) DeviceX ---> Parent-domain-1 ---> Parent domain-2 (Contains Perfomance states) Okay, how about this case first? Should we still use a phandle or an index value? > > > > ---> Parent domain-2 (Contains Perfomance states) > > | > > | > > C.) DeviceX ---> Parent-domain-1 | > > | > > | > > ---> Parent domain-3 (Contains Perfomance states) > > I'm a bit confused. How does a domain have 2 parent domains? The framework supported it and so I thought it should be fairly common. Even in the last version, I coded the notifier to handle cases where we have only one parent domain. But then Kevin pointed out that we shouldn't be doing any such special things. But binding doesn't say anything about it though, and I was just presenting an example. > You have the same problem either way. If I have performance state 2 > for the device, that corresponds to domain 2 or 3? Right now I have used the same performance state for both the domains in the code, as I am not sure if we will have such a case. And probably we can figure this out when we have a case with separate levels for both parents. It would be trivial to extend the bindings to include a list instead of a single value here. So, to conclude, should I use a phandle here or it is fine the way it is written right now ? With direct numbers, its easy to parse it in the OPP framework for example, as that's the value the QoS framework will use. Else we need to parse the phandle and read the "reg" value from there. -- viresh -- 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
