On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 05:42:15PM +0300, Georgi Djakov wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Thanks for the comments! > > On 09/25/2018 09:02 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 05:01:45PM +0300, Georgi Djakov wrote: > >> This binding is intended to represent the relations between the interconnect > >> controllers (providers) and consumer device nodes. It will allow creating links > >> between consumers and interconnect paths (exposed by interconnect providers). > > > > As I mentioned in person, I want to see other SoC families using this > > before accepting. They don't have to be ready for upstream, but WIP > > patches or even just a "yes, this works for us and we're going to use > > this binding on X". > > Other than the 3 Qualcomm SoCs (msm8916, msm8996, sdm845) that are > currently using this binding, there is ongoing work from at least two > other vendors that would be using this same binding. I will check on > what is their progress so far. > > > Also, I think the QCom GPU use of this should be fully sorted out. Or > > more generically how this fits into OPP binding which seems to be never > > ending extended... > > I see this as a further step. It could be OPP binding which include > bandwidth values or some separate DT property. Jordan has already > proposed something, do you have any initial comments on that? I am curious as how this fits into new systems which have firmware driven CPUFreq and other DVFS. I would like to avoid using this in such systems and leave it upto the firmware to scale the bus/interconnect based on the other components that are connected to it and active. -- Regards, Sudeep
