On 12-04-17, 17:58, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > The OPP table bindings contains all the necessary fields to support
> > power-domains now. Update the power-domain bindings to allow
> > "operating-points-v2" to be present within the power-domain node.
> >
> > Also allow consumer devices, that don't use OPP tables, to specify the
> > parent power-domain's performance level using the
> > "domain-performance-state" property.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> > index 723e1ad937da..5db112fa5d7c 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> > @@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ phandle arguments (so called PM domain specifiers) of length specified by the
> > domain's idle states. In the absence of this property, the domain would be
> > considered as capable of being powered-on or powered-off.
> >
> > +- operating-points-v2 : This describes the performance states of a PM domain.
> > + Refer to ../opp/opp.txt for more information.
> > +
> > Example:
> >
> > power: power-controller@12340000 {
> > @@ -118,4 +121,43 @@ The node above defines a typical PM domain consumer device, which is located
> > inside a PM domain with index 0 of a power controller represented by a node
> > with the label "power".
> >
> > +Optional properties:
> > +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
> > + power-domain performance level required by the consumer device. The integer
> > + value '0' represents the lowest performance level and the higher values
> > + represent higher performance levels. The value of "domain-performance-state"
> > + field should match the "domain-performance-state" field of one of the OPP
> > + nodes in the parent power-domain's OPP table.
> > +
> > +
> > +
> > +Example:
> > +
> > + domain_opp_table: opp_table {
> > + compatible = "operating-points-v2";
> > +
> > + opp@1 {
> > + domain-performance-state = <1>;
> > + opp-microvolt = <975000 970000 985000>;
> > + };
> > + opp@2 {
> > + domain-performance-state = <2>;
> > + opp-microvolt = <1075000 1000000 1085000>;
> > + };
> > + };
> > +
> > + parent: power-controller@12340000 {
> > + compatible = "foo,power-controller";
> > + reg = <0x12340000 0x1000>;
> > + #power-domain-cells = <0>;
> > + operating-points-v2 = <&domain_opp_table>;
>
> As mentioned in the other email, it would be good to consider
> scalability with multiple power domains in a PM domain provider.
> i.e case of #power-domain-cells = <1> or more
Yeah, but that isn't supported for devices today. So no point
considering that today.
--
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
