On 12.07.2024 11:53 AM, Ajit Pandey wrote: > > > On 7/11/2024 3:25 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> On 3.07.2024 11:16 AM, Ajit Pandey wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 6/13/2024 1:11 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/11/24 15:37, Ajit Pandey wrote: >>>>> Add device node for camera, display and graphics clock controller on >>>>> Qualcomm SM4450 platform. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ajit Pandey <quic_ajipan@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>> >>>> None of these nodes reference a power domain (which would usually be >>>> CX/MX/MMCX). This way, the RPMhPDs will never be scaled. >>>> >>>> The current upstream implementation only allows one power domain to be >>>> scaled, but that's better than none (see other DTs for recent SoCs). >>>> >>>> Konrad >>> >>> SM4450 doesn't support MMCX and CX/MX domains will remain active so >>> power-domains property is actually not required for SM4450 clock nodes. >> >> It's not only about them being active.. some PLLs require e.g. MX to be >> at a certain level, or the system will be unstable >> >> Konrad > > With active I mean CX/MX rails will be default running at minimum level required for clock controllers. Adding power-domains property for CX/MX rails is like a redundant code as that will also scale such rails at default specified minimum level only. Also we hadn't added such property for other targets DT nodes to scale up CX/MX at minimum level. What I mean here is that, the minimum level may not be enough. In such case you would also add a required-opps = <&handle_to_rpmhpd_opp_level> Konrad
