On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 14:38:53 +0200 Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Yes! Among the boards using Allwinner SoCs there are some, say less-optimal designs ;-) Cheers, Andre > > 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.
