On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 3:36 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 25-09-18, 14:43, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 5:25 AM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rob,
> > >
> > > []...
> > > >>>>> + rpmhpd_opp_table: opp-table {
> > > >>>>> + compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level";
> > > >>>>> +
> > > >>>>> + rpmhpd_opp_ret: opp1 {
> > > >>>>> + qcom,level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_RETENTION>;
> > > >>>>> + };
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I don't see the point in using the OPP binding here when you aren't
> > > >>>> using *any* of the properties from it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yeah, that's the case for now. But there are cases (as Stephen
> > > >>> mentioned earlier [1]) where the voltage values (and maybe other
> > > >>> values like current, etc) would be known and filled in DT. And that's
> > > >>> why we all agreed to use OPP tables for PM domains as well, as these
> > > >>> are really "operating performance points" of these PM domains.
> > > >>
> > > >> Rob, are you fine with these bindings then?
> > > >
> > > > Okay, my only thought is whether we should just use 'reg' here, or do
> > > > we need 'level' for anything else and should make it common?
> > >
> > > I am not quite sure I understood what you are suggesting here :(
> >
> > You could use the 'reg' property instead of 'qcom,level'. Any reason
> > not to do that?
>
> They can use any property which uniquely identifies the OPP nodes in
> the table. Though I never thought we can use 'reg' property in such a
> way. I always thought it must be related to registers somehow :)
That's almost certainly where the name originates from back in the
90s. I view 'reg' as how you identify or address a device. This can be
channels of something like an ADC.
It's perhaps a stretch for OPP nodes as they aren't really a device,
but if the levels are part of the h/w then perhaps reg is a good
match.
Rob
