On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:31 PM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/4/2018 11:27 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 03-07-18, 16:35, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> +qcom,level values specified in the OPP tables for RPMh power domains
> >>> +should use the RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_* constants from
> >>> +<dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h>
> >>> +
> >>> + rpmhpd: power-controller {
> >>> + compatible = "qcom,sdm845-rpmhpd";
> >>> + #power-domain-cells = <1>;
> >>> + operating-points-v2 = <&rpmhpd_opp_table>;
> >>> + };
> >>> +
> >>> + rpmhpd_opp_table: opp-table {
> >>> + compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level";
> >>> +
> >>> + rpmhpd_opp_ret: opp1 {
> >>> + qcom,level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_RETENTION>;
> >>> + };
> >>
> >> I don't see the point in using the OPP binding here when you aren't
> >> using *any* of the properties from it.
> >
> > Yeah, that's the case for now. But there are cases (as Stephen
> > mentioned earlier [1]) where the voltage values (and maybe other
> > values like current, etc) would be known and filled in DT. And that's
> > why we all agreed to use OPP tables for PM domains as well, as these
> > are really "operating performance points" of these PM domains.
>
> Rob, are you fine with these bindings then?
Okay, my only thought is whether we should just use 'reg' here, or do
we need 'level' for anything else and should make it common?
Rob
