On 11/20/2018 9:44 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 09:42:05AM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
On 11/9/2018 10:09 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 05:17:45PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:47:49PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
Extend qcom-opp bindings with properties needed for Core Power Reduction
(CPR).
CPR is included in a great variety of Qualcomm SoC, e.g. msm8916 and
msm8996, and was first introduced in msm8974.
Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Hello Rob, Rajendra,
Sorry for not replying sooner.
Since Rob wanted the binding to be complete before merging,
this is my proposal to extend the OPP binding with properties
needed to support CPR (both for msm8916 and msm8996).
I've discussed the proposal with Viresh, and this proposal
seems better than what I previously suggested here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181005204424.GA29500@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
.../devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-opp.txt | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-opp.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-opp.txt
index db4d970c7ec7..3ab5dd84de86 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-opp.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-opp.txt
@@ -23,3 +23,22 @@ Required properties:
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've lost the context here. Please send this all together.
Will do, as soon as I've gotten your feedback on this mail.
Niklas, are you still waiting for feedback on this mail from Rob?
Yes.
Rob, did you have any further feedback for Niklas based on his binding proposal?
Rajendra, I realize that your patches have been ready for merging for
a long time, and this fuse-level is quite complex, so the discussion
has been taken longer than expected. Sorry for that.
Hopefully Rob will reply soon, or perhaps he could agree to merge your
binding as is, and I could extend it later, when we have reached a
consensus.
Or should we merge the qcom,level binding for now (since I though we agreed
'reg' is probably not the right fit for it) and then discuss further on how to
describe the legacy platforms which require more details like fuse bindings?
Note that the current platform (sdm845) only needs the qcom,level binding.
What Niklas is proposing is for describing the older SoCs.
