On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:10:15PM -0400, Thara Gopinath wrote:
> On 10/17/2019 11:43 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 17:28, Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Ulf,
> >> Thanks for the review!
> >>
> >> On 10/17/2019 05:04 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 21:37, Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> RPMh power controller hosts mx domain that can be used as thermal
> >>>> warming device. Add a sub-node to specify this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt | 10 ++++++++++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt
> >>>> index eb35b22..fff695d 100644
> >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt
> >>>> @@ -18,6 +18,16 @@ Required Properties:
> >>>> Refer to <dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h> for the level values for
> >>>> various OPPs for different platforms as well as Power domain indexes
> >>>>
> >>>> += SUBNODES
> >>>> +RPMh alsp hosts power domains that can behave as thermal warming device.
> >>>> +These are expressed as subnodes of the RPMh. The name of the node is used
> >>>> +to identify the power domain and must therefor be "mx".
> >>>> +
> >>>> +- #cooling-cells:
> >>>> + Usage: optional
> >>>> + Value type: <u32>
> >>>> + Definition: must be 2
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> Just wanted to express a minor thought about this. In general we use
> >>> subnodes of PM domain providers to represent the topology of PM
> >>> domains (subdomains), this is something different, which I guess is
> >>> fine.
> >>>
> >>> I assume the #cooling-cells is here tells us this is not a PM domain
> >>> provider, but a "cooling device provider"?
> >> Yep.
> >>>
> >>> Also, I wonder if it would be fine to specify "power-domains" here,
> >>> rather than using "name" as I think that is kind of awkward!?
> >> Do you mean "power-domain-names" ? I am using this to match against the
> >> genpd names defined in the provider driver.
> >
> > No. If you are using "power-domains" it means that you allow to
> > describe the specifier for the provider.
> Yep. But won't this look funny in DT ? The provider node will have a sub
> node with a power domain referencing to itself Like below: Is this ok ?
>
> rpmhpd: power-controller {
> compatible = "qcom,sdm845-rpmhpd";
> #power-domain-cells = <1>;
>
> ...
> ...
> mx_cdev: mx {
> #cooling-cells = <2>;
> power-domains = <&rpmhpd SDM845_MX>;
> };
>
The whole concept here seems all wrong to me. Isn't it what's in the
power domain that's the cooling device. A CPU power domain is not a
cooling device, the CPU is. Or we wouldn't make a clock a cooling
device, but what the clock drives.
Rob
