On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 11:06, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 05-11-20, 10:45, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > + Viresh > > Thanks Ulf. I found a bug in OPP core because you cc'd me here :) Happy to help. :-) > > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 00:44, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I need some more time to review this, but just a quick check found a > > few potential issues... > > > > The "core-supply", that you specify as a regulator for each > > controller's device node, is not the way we describe power domains. > > Maybe I misunderstood your comment here, but there are two ways of > scaling the voltage of a device depending on if it is a regulator (and > can be modeled as one in the kernel) or a power domain. I am not objecting about scaling the voltage through a regulator, that's fine to me. However, encoding a power domain as a regulator (even if it may seem like a regulator) isn't. Well, unless Mark Brown has changed his mind about this. In this case, it seems like the regulator supply belongs in the description of the power domain provider. > > In case of Qcom earlier (when we added the performance-state stuff), > the eventual hardware was out of kernel's control and we didn't wanted > (allowed) to model it as a virtual regulator just to pass the votes to > the RPM. And so we did what we did. > > But if the hardware (where the voltage is required to be changed) is > indeed a regulator and is modeled as one, then what Dmitry has done > looks okay. i.e. add a supply in the device's node and microvolt > property in the DT entries. I guess I haven't paid enough attention how power domain regulators are being described then. I was under the impression that the CPUfreq case was a bit specific - and we had legacy bindings to stick with. Can you point me to some other existing examples of where power domain regulators are specified as a regulator in each device's node? Kind regards Uffe
