On 2020-03-19 15:54, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 19-03-20, 15:41, Sibi Sankar wrote:
Viresh,
Saravana's example does show a device
with multiple opp tables but doesn't
need multiple opp table support to
land though (since it works fine with
the current implementation). I am more
interested in understanding your/
Stephen's/Saravana's stance on adding
multiple opp-table support. Personally
I feel its inevitable, since multiple
qc drivers using interconnect opp-tables,
routinely need vote on multiple paths in
a non-trivial manner.
The OPP core doesn't support multiple OPP tables for a device and I
don't understand how it will. And so I have been waiting for a reply.
This series tries to add minimal support
for multiple opp-tables per device and
can be tested on db845c/sdm845mtp/sc7180.
Debugfs still needs to be fixed though and
fixing it did feel non-trivial (I can get
to it if we reach a consensus). Perhaps we
can fork out icc oppp-tables from regular
opp-tables and allow only multiple instances
of icc opp-tables per device(though Rob
didn't like the bindings associated with it)
that way all the current users wont be
affected but from what I've tested the
series shouldn't cause any regression.
>
> Could you please post a link to the discussion that you are referring to
> here?
> I looked at a few links posted in the cover letter as dependencies and
> it seems
> like the discussions are pending for *months* and not weeks but I
> might have looked
> at the wrong ones.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200114103448.odnvqawnqb3twst5@vireshk-i7/
Rajendra,
Viresh is referring to ^^ one
Right, thanks.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
