On 17/04/17 06:33, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 13-04-17, 14:43, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Interesting. My understand of power domain and in particular power >> domain performance was that it would control both. The abstract number >> you introduce would hide clocks and regulators. >> >> But if the concept treats it just as yet another regulator, we do we >> need these at all. Why don't we relate this performance to regulator >> values and be done with it ? >> >> Sorry if I am missing to understand something here. I would look this as >> replacement for both clocks and regulators, something similar to ACPI >> CPPC. If not, it looks unnecessary to me with the information I have got >> so far. > > I kind of answered that in the other email. > > Some background may be good here. So Qcom tried to solve all this with virtual > regulators, but the problem was that they need to talk in terms of integer > values (1, 2, 3..) and not voltages and so they can't use the regulator > framework straight away. And so we are doing all this. > Was it posted externally ? Was there any objections for that approach ? IMO that's better approach but if I am late to the party, I would like to read through the discussions that happened on it(if any) -- Regards, Sudeep -- 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
