On 17:28-20130501, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> On 01/05/13 15:41, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 12:11-20130501, sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com wrote:
> >> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com>
> >>
> >> If more than one similar devices share the same OPPs, currently we
> >> need to replicate the OPP entries in all the nodes.
> > Nice, thanks.
> >>
> >> Few drivers like cpufreq depend on physical cpu0 node to specify the
> > cpufreq-cpu0?
> Yes when I originally wrote this patch cpufreq-cpu0 was using cpu0 node.
> But later sometimes it was changed to parse all the nodes.
giving an explicit example like cpufreq-cpu0 might be helpful - but we
may have more cases like this else where with co-processors (devfreq
world).
[...]
> >> +a SoC or in a single cluster on a SoC, then we need to avoid replicating
> >> the
> >> +OPPs in all the nodes. We can specify the phandle of the node with which
> >> the
> >> +current node shares the operating points instead.
> >> +
> >> +Examples:
> >> +Consider an SMP with 4 CPUs all sharing the same OPPs.
> > We might want to descr
> I could not get what exactly you mean by 'descr', do you mean more
> descriptive ? If so, what exactly you would like to add ?
Arrgh.. Typical of me to forget my reply thread and leave it dangling
when someone interrupts me :( Sigh.. Apologies about that.
I intended the following:
An example of bL might be 4 A15s and 3 a7s? A15s have different
frequencies Vs A7s?
The example below could easily be covered by cpufreq-cpu0 - so an actual
usage illustrated will help.
>
> >> +
> >> +cpu0: cpu@0 {
> >> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a9";
> >> + reg = <0>;
> >> + next-level-cache = <&L2>;
> >> + operating-points = <
> >> + /* kHz uV */
> >> + 792000 1100000
> >> + 396000 950000
> >> + 198000 850000
> >> + >;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +cpu1: cpu@1 {
> >> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a9";
> >> + reg = <1>;
> >> + next-level-cache = <&L2>;
> >> + operating-points = <&cpu0>;
> >> +};
[...]
>
> >> {
> >> + struct device_opp *dev_opp = NULL;
> > dev_opp is not used until patch #2 - please introduce it in that patch.
> Correct it was meant to be in patch#2, will move in next version
I'd hold on to the rev 2 until we are clear that we have precedence for
allowing parameters to have two different formats.
I might optionally go with introducing a new parameter to indicate
phandle lists similar to pinctrl.. Just a thought. There may be other
usage for the same in addition to resolving the scenario you mention.
Trivial example:
cpu0 can take three different operating-point sets ->
default - 300MHz, 600MHz, 800MHz
regular performance - 300MHz, 600MHz, 800MHz, 1GHz
performance - 300MHz, 600MHz, 800MHz, 1GHz, 1.7GHz
Choice is made which set it picks up.
making operating-points as a phandle by itself is questionable as it
does not really represent an hardware device - but options for
operation.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
