On Mon 07 Jun 12:48 CDT 2021, khsieh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 2021-06-05 22:07, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Thu 03 Jun 16:56 CDT 2021, khsieh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > On 2021-06-03 09:53, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > > On Thu 03 Jun 11:09 CDT 2021, Kuogee Hsieh wrote: > > [..] > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor.dtsi > > [..] > > > > > + power-domains = <&rpmhpd SC7180_CX>; > > > > > > > > Just curious, but isn't the DP block in the MDSS_GDCS? Or do we need to > > > > mention CX here in order for the opp framework to apply required-opps > > > > of CX? > > > > > > yes, > > > > If you want me, or other maintainers, to spend any time reviewing or > > applying your patches going forward then you need to actually bother > > replying properly to the questions asked. > > > > Thanks, > > Bjorn > > Sorry about the confusion. What I meant is that even though DP controller is > in the MDSS_GDSC > power domain, DP PHY/PLL sources out of CX. The DP link clocks have a direct > impact > on the CX voltage corners. Therefore, we need to mention the CX power domain > here. And, since > we can associate only one OPP table with one device, we picked the DP link > clock over other > clocks. Thank you, that's a much more useful answer. Naturally I would think it would make more sense for the PHY/PLL driver to ensure that CX is appropriately voted for then, but I think that would result in it being the clock driver performing such vote and I'm unsure how the opp table for that would look. @Stephen, what do you say? Regards, Bjorn
