Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> writes: > An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain > performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually merge the > supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will make things > easier to understand for all. The bindings can be decided and merged > later. > > The bindings [1] aren't discarded yet and this series is based on a > version of those only. The bindings are only used by the last patch, > which should not be applied and is only sent for completeness. > > IOW, this series doesn't have any dependencies and can be merged > straight away without waiting for the DT bindings. > > A brief summary of the problem this series is trying to solve: > > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
And what about domains where the performance levels are represented by someting other than positive integer values? IMO, this implementation should start with a more generic approach (e.g. OPPs) that would be useful on more SoCs that just qcom. For SoCs like QCOM, you could use dummy/simplfied OPPs that represent the integer values passed to the qcom firmware. > We decided earlier that we should extend Power Domain framework to > support active state power management as well. The power-domains until > now were only concentrating on the idle state management of the device > and this needs to change in order to reuse the infrastructure of power > domains for active state management. Yes. Thanks for working on it! Kevin