Hi, On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 14:33, Clément Péron <peron.clem@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Robin, > > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 13:10, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 2020-04-16 2:42 pm, Steven Price wrote: > > [...] > > > Perhaps a better approach would be for Panfrost to hand over the struct > > > regulator objects it has already got to the OPP framework. I.e. open > > > code dev_pm_opp_set_regulators(), but instead of calling > > > regulator_get_optional() simply populate the regulators we already have? Just saw that a Lima devfreq[0] has been also introduced with I think exactly the same logic. Is this something that hasn't been triggered by Maintainer or I am missing something? I will backport some remarks made on the lima devfreq to improve panfrost one. They are almost identical. Regards, Clement 0: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-misc/commit/?id=1996970773a323533e1cc1b6b97f00a95d675f32 > > > > > > The other benefit of that is it would provide a clear hand-over of > > > responsibility between Panfrost handling it's own regulators and the OPP > > > framework picking up the work. The disadvantage is that Panfrost would > > > have to track whether the regulators have been handed over or not. > > > > Sounds like the most logical thing to do is to shuffle things around so > > we start by trying to set up an OPP table, then fall back to explicitly > > claiming clocks and regulators if necessary. Then we can easily make the > > devfreq decision later in probe based on how that turned out. > > Ok I will propose a new serie with this behavior, > > Thanks > Clement > > > > > Robin. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
