13.11.2020 17:45, Ulf Hansson пишет: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 23:14, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 12.11.2020 23:43, Thierry Reding пишет: >>>> The difference in comparison to using voltage regulator directly is >>>> minimal, basically the core-supply phandle is replaced is replaced with >>>> a power-domain phandle in a device tree. >>> These new power-domain handles would have to be added to devices that >>> potentially already have a power-domain handle, right? Isn't that going >>> to cause issues? I vaguely recall that we already have multiple power >>> domains for the XUSB controller and we have to jump through extra hoops >>> to make that work. >> >> I modeled the core PD as a parent of the PMC sub-domains, which >> presumably is a correct way to represent the domains topology. >> >> https://gist.github.com/digetx/dfd92c7f7e0aa6cef20403c4298088d7 > > That could make sense, it seems. > > Anyway, this made me realize that > dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(dev) returns -EINVAL, in case the > device's genpd doesn't have the ->set_performance_state() assigned. > This may not be correct. Instead we should likely consider an empty > callback as okay and continue to walk the topology upwards to the > parent domain, etc. > > Just wanted to point this out. I intend to post a patch as soon as I > can for this. Thank you, I was also going to make the same change, but haven't bothered to do it so far. Please feel free to CC me on the patch. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
