Re: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-29 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 29 January 2015 at 21:52, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> - Getting clock sharing information between CPUs. Single shared clock vs >> independent clock per core vs shared clock per cluster. > > I'd like to see acks from Qualcomm folks to make sur

Re: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-29 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 29 January 2015 at 21:12, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> The goal is to choose the driver which we want to probe for a platform. There >> can be multiple DT enabled cpufreq drivers present in a build and the >> platform >> needs some way to choos

Re: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-29 Thread Rob Herring
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Rob et al, > > This is another attempt to redefine OPP bindings which we concluded to after > first round of reviews. > > Current OPP (Operating performance point) DT bindings are proven to be > insufficient at multiple instances. > > There ha

Re: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-29 Thread Rob Herring
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 29 January 2015 at 01:36, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:14:50PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: [...] >>> + Required properties: >>> + - compatible: allow OPPs to express their compatibility. >>> + - opp-list: phandle to

Re: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-29 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 29 January 2015 at 16:37, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 07:09:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> The goal is to choose the driver which we want to probe for a platform. There >> can be multiple DT enabled cpufreq drivers present in a build and the >> platform >> needs some way t

Re: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-29 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 07:09:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 29 January 2015 at 01:36, Mark Brown wrote: > >> + Required properties: > >> + - compatible: allow OPPs to express their compatibility. > >> + - opp-list: phandle to opp-list defined above. > > I don't understand what that com

Re: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-28 Thread Mark Brown
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:14:50PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > +- opp-listN: > + List of nodes defining performance points. Following belong to the nodes > + within the opp-lists. Why is there the N here? It doesn't correspond to the examples... > + Required properties: > + - opp-khz: Freq

Re: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-28 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 29 January 2015 at 01:36, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:14:50PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> +- opp-listN: >> + List of nodes defining performance points. Following belong to the nodes >> + within the opp-lists. > > Why is there the N here? It doesn't correspond to the ex

Re: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-23 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 23 January 2015 at 17:22, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:39:14PM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote: > I tend to agree that this is clearer. It might be nice to have variants > for specifying directly as a percentage but I don't think it's really > worth the complexity. > If we change

Re: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-23 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 23 January 2015 at 17:09, Lucas Stach wrote: > Am Freitag, den 23.01.2015, 16:14 +0530 schrieb Viresh Kumar: >> I haven't incorporated the comments given by Mark Brown as I had some doubts. >> @broonie: Is this what you wanted to mention earlier ? : >> http://pastebin.com/1RZTccmm >> > > I thi

Re: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-23 Thread Mark Brown
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:39:14PM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote: > > + Required properties: > > + - opp-khz: Frequency in kHz > > + - opp-microvolt: voltage in micro Volts > Each OPP voltage should be defined by the triplet of minimum, > nominal/typical, maximum. This lets you specify exact tolera

Re: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-23 Thread Lucas Stach
Am Freitag, den 23.01.2015, 16:14 +0530 schrieb Viresh Kumar: > Rob et al, > > This is another attempt to redefine OPP bindings which we concluded to after > first round of reviews. > > Current OPP (Operating performance point) DT bindings are proven to be > insufficient at multiple instances. >

Re: [RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-23 Thread Viresh Kumar
Fixing Olof's email address .. On 23 January 2015 at 16:14, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Rob et al, > > This is another attempt to redefine OPP bindings which we concluded to after > first round of reviews. > > Current OPP (Operating performance point) DT bindings are proven to be > insufficient at mult

[RFC V2] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

2015-01-23 Thread Viresh Kumar
Rob et al, This is another attempt to redefine OPP bindings which we concluded to after first round of reviews. Current OPP (Operating performance point) DT bindings are proven to be insufficient at multiple instances. There had been multiple band-aid approaches to get them fixed (The latest one