On 8/5/2020 12:09 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2020-08-04 04:46:54)
While most devices within power-domains which support performance states,
scale the performance state dynamically, some devices might want to
set a static/default performance state while the device is active.
These devices typically would also run of a fixed clock and not support
s/of/off/
dyamically scaling the device's performance, also known as DVFS techniques.
s/dyamically/dynamically/
Add a property 'assigned-performance-states' which client devices can
use to set this default performance state on their power-domains.
Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml
index ff5936e..48e9319 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml
@@ -66,6 +66,16 @@ properties:
by the given provider should be subdomains of the domain specified
by this binding.
+ assigned-performance-states:
+ $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array
+ description:
+ Some devices might need to configure their power domains in a default
+ performance state while the device is active. These devices typcially
+ would also run of a fixed clock and not support dyamically scaling the
Same of and dynamically comment.
+ device's performance, also known as DVFS techniques. The list of performance
+ state values should correspond to the list of power domains specified as part
+ of the power-domains property.
This is different than assigned-clock-rates. I guess that's OK because
we don't need to assign parents with more specifiers. Maybe it should be
worded more strongly to clearly state that each cell corresponds to one
power domain? And that it should match the opp-level inside any OPP
table for the power domain?
Sure, I'll reword it to make it clear that we need the same number of cells
as power-domains, and as you pointed out below that 0 corresponds to not setting
anything.
For the matching of opp-level inside the OPP table of the power-domain, I don't
think from the power-domain bindings we limit providers with only OPP tables to
support performance states? It could be just a range that the provider manages
internally?
And thanks for catching all my typos :), I'll have them fixed when I re-spin.
+
required:
- "#power-domain-cells"
@@ -129,3 +139,40 @@ examples:
min-residency-us = <7000>;
};
};
+
+ - |
+ parent4: power-controller@12340000 {
+ compatible = "foo,power-controller";
+ reg = <0x12340000 0x1000>;
+ #power-domain-cells = <0>;
+ };
+
+ parent5: power-controller@43210000 {
+ compatible = "foo,power-controller";
+ reg = <0x43210000 0x1000>;
+ #power-domain-cells = <0>;
+ operating-points-v2 = <&power_opp_table>;
+
+ power_opp_table: opp-table {
+ compatible = "operating-points-v2";
+
+ power_opp_low: opp1 {
+ opp-level = <16>;
+ };
+
+ rpmpd_opp_ret: opp2 {
+ opp-level = <64>;
+ };
+
+ rpmpd_opp_svs: opp3 {
+ opp-level = <256>;
+ };
+ };
+ };
+
+ child4: consumer@12341000 {
+ compatible = "foo,consumer";
+ reg = <0x12341000 0x1000>;
+ power-domains = <&parent4>, <&parent5>;
+ assigned-performance-states = <0>, <256>;
I guess <0> means don't set anything?
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
