Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2020-08-05 01:13:06) > > On 8/5/2020 12:09 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2020-08-04 04:46:54) > > > >> + device's performance, also known as DVFS techniques. The list of > >> performance > >> + state values should correspond to the list of power domains > >> specified as part > >> + of the power-domains property. > > > > This is different than assigned-clock-rates. I guess that's OK because > > we don't need to assign parents with more specifiers. Maybe it should be > > worded more strongly to clearly state that each cell corresponds to one > > power domain? And that it should match the opp-level inside any OPP > > table for the power domain? > > Sure, I'll reword it to make it clear that we need the same number of cells > as power-domains, and as you pointed out below that 0 corresponds to not > setting > anything. > > For the matching of opp-level inside the OPP table of the power-domain, I > don't > think from the power-domain bindings we limit providers with only OPP tables > to > support performance states? It could be just a range that the provider manages > internally?
Ok. The example made it match so maybe that can be clarified as well that it doesn't need to match any OPP table performance state.
