On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:17 PM Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 10:18:22AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> FWIW, I actually have a use case on qcom SoCs.
>
> I'm working on reviving an old patch series from Stephen Boyd:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/18/833
>
>
> Rajendra's Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-opp.txt currently has:
>
> Required properties:
> - qcom,level: On Qualcomm platforms an OPP node can describe a positive value
> representing a corner/level that's communicated with a remote microprocessor
> (usually called the RPM) which then translates it into a certain voltage on
> a voltage rail
>
>
> I'm planning on extending it with something like:
>
> Optional properties:
> -qcom,fuse-level: On Qualcomm platforms, not all corners/levels are real
> corners/levels, i.e., not all corners/levels have a unique eFuse associated.
> Usually more than one corner/level uses the same eFuse corner/level.
Is that because there's additional parameters not covered as part of a corner?
> So for each OPP I would have:
>
> opp1 {
> qcom,level = <foo>;
> qcom,fuse-level = <bar>;
> }
>
>
> Not sure if this changes your opinion about using reg,
> but I thought that it was worth mentioning.
'reg' is probably not the right fit then.
Does any of this fuse-level apply to platforms using this binding? If
so, then it should be incorporated here. I don't want incomplete
bindings that get one property added at a time.
Rob
