On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 14:54:03 +0200 Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2024-09-05 14:42, Andre Przywara wrote: > > 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 ;-) > > I see, but such boards could simply disable the "cpu0_opp_table" node in > their dts(i) files, for the encapsulated CPU OPPs scenario, and > everything > would still work and be defined in a clean(er) way. I agree, and I was already about to suggest this as a reply to your initial post, but I think I tried that, and IIRC this doesn't work: the "status" property is not honoured for this node. But please double check that. Cheers, Andre > I mean, if there are some suboptimal designs, perhaps the defaults > should > be tailored towards the good designs, and the suboptimal designs should > be > some kind of exceptions. > > >> > 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.
