On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 01:42:43PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 17:17, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 04:17:35PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > The protocol@13 node is describing the performance scaling option for the > > > ARM SCMI interface, as a clock provider. This is unnecessary limiting, as > > > performance scaling is in many cases not limited to switching a clock's > > > frequency. > > > > > > Therefore, let's extend the binding so the interface can be modelled as a > > > generic performance domaintoo. The common way to describe this, is to use > > > the "power-domain" DT bindings, so let's use that. > > > > > > > One thing I forgot to ask earlier is how we can manage different domain IDs > > for perf and power domains which is the case with current SCMI platforms as > > the spec never mandated or can ever mandate the perf and power domains IDs > > to match. They need not be same anyways. > > Based upon what you describe above, I have modelled the perf-domain > and the power-domain as two separate power-domain providers. > > A consumer device being hooked up to both domains, would specify the > domain IDs in the second power-domain-cell, along the lines of the > below. Then we would use power-domain-names to specify what each > power-domain represents. > > power-domains = <&scmi_pd 2>, <&scmi_dvfs 4>; > power-domain-names = "power", "perf"; > > I hope this makes it clearer!? Yes it make is clear definitely, but it does change the definition of the generic binding of the "power-domains" property now. I am interesting in the feedback from the binding maintainers with respect to that. Or is it already present ? IIUC, the ones supported already are generally both power and performance providers. May be it doesn't matter much, just wanted to explicit ask and confirm those details. -- Regards, Sudeep
