On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 12:55:35PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > 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. I commented on v1. Looks like abuse of "power-domains" to me, but nothing new really. Please define when to use a power domain vs. a perf domain and don't leave it up to the whims of the platform. Maybe perf domains was a mistake and they should be deprecated? Rob
