On 11-07-24, 17:25, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Right, I get your point. > > Although, it seems to me that just limiting required-opps to > performance-levels, could avoid us from having to enforce the OPPs for > genpd. In other words, doing something along the lines of $subject > patch should work fine. I really don't want to design the code that way. Required OPPs don't have anything to do with a genpd. Genpd is just one of the possible use cases and I would like the code to reflect it, even if we don't have any other users for this kind of stuff for now, but we surely can. Just that those problems are solved differently for now. For example, cache DVFS along with CPUs, etc. And as I said earlier, it is entirely possible that the genpd OPP table wants to configure few more things apart from just level, and hence a full fledged set-opp is a better design choice. > In fact, it looks to me that the required-opps handling for the > *single* PM domain case, is already limited to solely > performance-levels (opp-level), as there are no required_devs being > assigned for it. Or did I get that wrong? That's why the API for setting required-opps was introduced, to make it a central point of entry for all use cases where we want to attach a device. -- viresh
