On 06/18, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 17-06-15, 18:30, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > An operating-point(s?)-names property seems ok... but doesn't that mean > > that every CPU that uses the OPP has to have the same list of > > operating-point-names? > > Why do you think so? For me the operating-points-v2-names property > will be present in CPU node (as there is no OPP node which can have > it) and so every CPU is free to choose what it wants to. Yes. > > > It would make sense to me if the operating points > > were called something different depending on *which* CPU is using them, > > but in this case the only name for the operating point is "slow" or > > "fast", etc. > > I am completely confused now. :) > As am I. > The problem you stated now was there with the current state of > bindings. The name is embedded into the OPP table node and so is fixed > for all the CPUs. Moving it to the CPU node will give all CPUs a > chance to name it whatever they want to. And the same list has to be > replicated to all CPUs sharing the clock rails. > Yes I don't see how the name will be different for any CPU, hence my complaint/question about duplicate names in each CPU. I guess it isn't any worse than clock-names though so I'm fine with it. > > In reality we've assigned them names like speedX-binY-vZ so that we know > > which speed bin, voltage bin, and version they're part of. Maybe OPP > > node properties like qcom,speed-bin = <u32>, qcom,pvs-bin = <u32>, etc. > > would be better? > > Lets see, only if we can't get the generic stuff for this. > > > At the least, operating-points-names will be required on qcom platforms. > > A fixed ordering known to the platform would mean that we know exactly > > how many voltage bins and speed bins and how many voltage bins per speed > > bin are used for a particular SoC, which we've avoided knowing so far. > > What are we referring to fixed ordering? If we have both a list of > phandles to OPP tables and a list of names, they can be rearranged in > whatever fashion we want. Isn't it? > This is a reply to Rob's question about fixed ordering without a names property. That's unlikely to work out for qcom chips. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
