On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 12:37:29PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>
>
> On 12/5/2018 4:46 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2018-12-03 21:21:18)
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> > > index b72bdb0a31a5..a6d0cd8d17b0 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> > > @@ -1324,6 +1325,56 @@
> > > compatible = "qcom,sdm845-rpmh-clk";
> > > #clock-cells = <1>;
> > > };
> > > +
> > > + rpmhpd: power-controller {
> > > + compatible = "qcom,sdm845-rpmhpd";
> > > + #power-domain-cells = <1>;
> > > + operating-points-v2 = <&rpmhpd_opp_table>;
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + rpmhpd_opp_table: opp-table {
> >
> > This table should go somewhere else? I don't understand why it's in the
> > rpmh node because it's not an rpmh device. Does it go to the root? Or
> > does it go under rpmhpd itself? I'm not sure.
>
> I could move it to root perhaps, we seem to do that atleast in the case of
> GPU. The power domain bindings (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt)
> seem to suggest it can't be under the power-controller node itself.
Why not? I don't see anything forbidding that like already having some
other type of child nodes. It's a little weird to have
operating-points-v2 point to a child node, but that will still work.
Rob
