On 10-10-18, 09:10, Jordan Crouse wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 08:21:39PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 10-10-18, 08:48, Jordan Crouse wrote: > > > qcom,level comes straight from: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180627045234.27403-2-rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > But in this case instead of using the CPU to program the RPMh we are passing > > > the value to a microprocessor (the GMU) and that will do the vote on our behalf > > > (Technically we use the value to look up the vote in the cmd-db database and > > > pass that to the GMU) > > > > > > This is why the qcom,level was added in the first place so we could at least > > > share the nomenclature with the rpmhd if not the implementation. > > > > How you actually pass the vote to the underlying hardware, RPMh or > > GMU, is irrelevant to the whole thing. What is important is how we > > describe that in DT and how we represent the whole thing. > > > > We have chosen genpd + OPP to do this and same should be used by you > > as well. Another benefit is that the genpd core will do vote > > aggregation for you here. > > I'm not sure what you are suggesting? The vote is represented in DT exactly as > described in the bindings. Look at how Rajendra has done it to see the difference. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180627045234.27403-3-rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ -- viresh
