Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2018-12-11 20:13:13) > > >>> Just to make sure there are no conflicting hierarchical constraints > >>> between idle management and performance state management!? > >>> > > > > I'm not sure what idle states mean to the CX and MX domains. Would it be > > some sort of idle state governor attached at genpd creation time that > > would adjust the main SoC power rails when all devices attached are > > idle? Maybe I don't understand how idle states are different from > > performance states. > > My understanding is that devices using these domains would almost always > > expect their clk frequency and clk on/off state to decide what the > > performance state is, unless they need to ignore clk state because they > > aren't managing clks and bump up the voltage directly when the device is > > active. Either way, devices are actively managing the voltage they need > > these voltage domains to operate at by using the genpd performance > > states APIs. > > I am not quite sure whats the point that you are trying to make here, > but this is what I would expect the users of these genpds to do, > regardless of if they have a clk dependency or not. > When the device is active, vote for a performance state they need > then request for the genpd to be on. When they are idle, request for the > genpd to be turned off. > I believe Ulf is asking because he's proposing to make genpd idle states and genpd performance states orthogonal to each other. And to also make performance states unaffected by the on/off state of the genpd.
