On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:35 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:58:08AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:25 AM Sibi Sankar <sibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hey Saravana, > > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10850815/ > > > There was already a discussion ^^ on how bandwidth bindings were to be > > > named. > > > > Yes, I'm aware of that series. That series is trying to define a BW > > mapping for an existing frequency OPP table. This patch is NOT about > > adding a mapping to an existing table. This patch is about adding the > > notion of BW OPP tables where BW is the "key" instead of "frequency". > > > > So let's not mixed up these two series. > > Maybe different reasons, but in the end we'd end up with 2 bandwidth > properties. We need to sort out how they'd overlap/coexist. Oh, I totally agree! My point is that the other mapping isn't the right approach because it doesn't handle a whole swath of use cases. The one I'm proposing can act as a super set of the other (as in, can handle that use case too). > The same comment in that series about defining a standard unit suffix > also applies to this one. I thought I read that whole series and I don't remember reading about the unit suffix. But I'll take a closer look. I've chosen to keep the DT units at least as "high of a resolution" as what the APIs accept today. The APIs take KB/s. So I make sure DT can capture KB/s differences. If we all agree that KB/s is "too accurate" then I think we should change everything to MB/s. -Saravana
