On 24-03-17, 10:44, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:02:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's > > better than OPP table for that. > > > > This patch allows power-domains to reuse OPP tables to express their > > active states. The "opp-hz" property isn't a required property anymore > > as power-domains may not always use them. > > Then maybe you shouldn't be trying to make OPP table work here. At that > point you just need a table of voltage(s) per performance state? Because that's what Kevin strongly recommended in the previous versions. @Kevin: Would you like to reply here ? > > Add a new property "domain-performance-state", which will contain > > positive integer values to represent performance levels of the > > power-domains as described in this patch. > > Why not reference the OPP entries from the domain: > > performance-states = <&opp1>, <&opp2>; Because that would require additional code in the OPP core to parse these then. Right now it is quite straight forward with the bindings I presented. > Just thinking out loud, not saying that is what you should do. The > continual evolution of power (management) domain, idle state, and OPP > bindings is getting tiring. I agree :) -- 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
