On 09-11-20, 08:10, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 09.11.2020 07:47, Dmitry Osipenko пишет: > > 09.11.2020 07:43, Viresh Kumar пишет: > >> On 08-11-20, 15:19, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > >>> I took a detailed look at the GENPD and tried to implement it. Here is > >>> what was found: > >>> > >>> 1. GENPD framework doesn't aggregate performance requests from the > >>> attached devices. This means that if deviceA requests performance state > >>> 10 and then deviceB requests state 3, then framework will set domain's > >>> state to 3 instead of 10. > >> > >> It does. Look at _genpd_reeval_performance_state(). > >> > > > > Thanks, I probably had a bug in the quick prototype and then overlooked > > that function. > > > > If a non-hardware device-tree node is okay to have for the domain, then > I can try again. > > What I also haven't mentioned is that GENPD adds some extra complexity > to some drivers (3d, video decoder) because we will need to handle both > new GENPD and legacy Tegra specific pre-genpd era domains. > > I'm also not exactly sure how the topology of domains should look like > because Tegra has a power-controller (PMC) which manages power rail of a > few hardware units. Perhaps it should be > > device -> PMC domain -> CORE domain > > but not exactly sure for now. I am also confused on if it should be a domain or regulator, but that is for Ulf to tell :) -- viresh
