Quoting Viresh Kumar (2014-07-20 05:07:32) > On 19 July 2014 20:54, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Sorry for jumping late > > No, you aren't late. Its just 2 days old thread :) > > > but one of the point I was raising as part of your > > other series was to extend the CPU topology bindings to cover the voltage > > domain information which is probably what is really needed to let the > > CPUfreq extract the information. Not sure if it was already discussed. > > Not it wasn't. > > > After all the CPU clocks, cluster, clock-gating, power domains are pretty much > > related. So instead of having new binding for CPUFreq, I was wondering whether > > we can extend the CPU topology binding information to include missing information. > > Scheduler work anyway needs that information. > > > > Ref: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt > > > > Does that make sense ? > > Yeah it does, but I am not sure what exactly the bindings should look then. > So, the most basic step could be moving the new bindings to topology.txt > and name clock-master to dvfs-master. > > What else? If we're going to model the hardware then the binding should not use the CPU phandles in "clock-master" or "dvfs-master". The correct thing to model for a given CPU is which clock consumes. It's not accurate to say that one CPU is the "master", at least not in this context. A previous approach tried to compare struct clk pointers, which is a bad idea since those are just cookies and should not be deref'd by drivers. However a similar approach would be to compare the phandle, right? Regards, Mike > > If its going to be much controversial then we *can* go for just dvfs bindings > for now and then update them later. > > Doesn't make sense? :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
