Hello Andre,
On 2024-09-05 14:34, Andre Przywara wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 20:26:15 +0800
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 8:17 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Just checking, any further thoughts about this patch?
Sorry, but I feel like it's not really worth the churn. There's not
really a problem to be solved here. What you are arguing for is more
about aesthetics, and we could argue that having them separate makes
it easier to read and turn on/off.
Yeah, I agree. If a board wants to support OPPs, they just have to
include
a single file and define the CPU regulator, and that's a nice opt-in,
IMHO.
But having this patch would make it quite hard to opt out, I believe.
For
Linux there are probably ways to disable DVFS nevertheless, but I am
not
sure this is true in an OS agnostic pure-DT-only way.
Thanks for your response. The only thing that still makes me wonder
is why would a board want to opt out of DVFS? Frankly, I'd consider
the design of the boards that must keep DVFS disabled broken.
This could probably be solved, but same as Chen-Yu I don't see any good
enough reason for this patch in the first place.
And even though the GPU OPPs are in the dtsi, it's just one OPP acting
as a default clock rate.
