09.11.2020 07:47, Dmitry Osipenko пишет: > 09.11.2020 07:43, Viresh Kumar пишет: >> On 08-11-20, 15:19, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>> I took a detailed look at the GENPD and tried to implement it. Here is >>> what was found: >>> >>> 1. GENPD framework doesn't aggregate performance requests from the >>> attached devices. This means that if deviceA requests performance state >>> 10 and then deviceB requests state 3, then framework will set domain's >>> state to 3 instead of 10. >> >> It does. Look at _genpd_reeval_performance_state(). >> > > Thanks, I probably had a bug in the quick prototype and then overlooked > that function. > If a non-hardware device-tree node is okay to have for the domain, then I can try again. What I also haven't mentioned is that GENPD adds some extra complexity to some drivers (3d, video decoder) because we will need to handle both new GENPD and legacy Tegra specific pre-genpd era domains. I'm also not exactly sure how the topology of domains should look like because Tegra has a power-controller (PMC) which manages power rail of a few hardware units. Perhaps it should be device -> PMC domain -> CORE domain but not exactly sure for now. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
