Fixing Kevin's email id :( On 10-04-17, 14:55, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 24-03-17, 10:44, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:02:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's > > > better than OPP table for that. > > > > > > This patch allows power-domains to reuse OPP tables to express their > > > active states. The "opp-hz" property isn't a required property anymore > > > as power-domains may not always use them. > > > > Then maybe you shouldn't be trying to make OPP table work here. At that > > point you just need a table of voltage(s) per performance state? > > Because that's what Kevin strongly recommended in the previous > versions. > > @Kevin: Would you like to reply here ? > > > > Add a new property "domain-performance-state", which will contain > > > positive integer values to represent performance levels of the > > > power-domains as described in this patch. > > > > Why not reference the OPP entries from the domain: > > > > performance-states = <&opp1>, <&opp2>; > > Because that would require additional code in the OPP core to parse > these then. Right now it is quite straight forward with the bindings I > presented. > > > Just thinking out loud, not saying that is what you should do. The > > continual evolution of power (management) domain, idle state, and OPP > > bindings is getting tiring. > > I agree :)
-- viresh
