On 20/04/17 09:23, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Viresh, Sudeep, > > Sorry for jumping in late. > > [...] > >>> On the contrary(playing devil's advocate here), we can treat all >>> existing regulators alone as OPP then if you strip the voltages and >>> treat it as abstract number. >> >> But then we are going to have lots of platform specific code which >> will program the actual hardware, etc. Which is all handled by the >> regulator framework. Also note that the regulator core selects the >> common voltage selected by all the children, while we want to select >> the highest performance point here. > > If I understand correctly, Sudeep is not convinced that this is about > PM domain regulator(s), right? > No, I am saying that it has to be modeled as regulators or some kind of advanced regulators. I am against modeling it as some new feature and using similar terminology that are quite close to OPP/CPPC in which case it's quite hard not to misunderstand the concepts and eventually use these bindings incorrectly. > To me there is no doubt, these regulators is exactly the definition of > PM domain regulators. > +1 > That said, long time ago we have decided PM domain regulator shall be > modeled as exactly that. From DT point of view, this means the handle > to the PM domain regulator belongs in the node of the PM domain > controller - and not in each device's node of those belonging to the > PM domain. > > Isn't that what this discussion really boils down to? Or maybe I am > not getting it. > I completely agree with you on all the above points. I am against the performance state terminology. Since the regulators and OPP are already defined in the bindings, all we need to explicitly state(if not already) is that there are hierarchical. -- 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
