Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-12-02 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 29-11-16, 17:08, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Perhaps. One question is if we consider a shared regulator as a > regulator in the kernel, or if we want to hide the regulator > behind some other API that aggregates the users of the voltage. I > don't see how to draw the line clearly between a regulator a

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-29 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 11/29, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 28-11-16, 10:27, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 11/23/2016 08:40 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > But even in these cases we wouldn't be using the voltage values within the > > > kernel as we will be giving only a performance state to the M3 core, > > > right? > > > >

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-28 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 28-11-16, 10:27, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 11/23/2016 08:40 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > But even in these cases we wouldn't be using the voltage values within the > > kernel as we will be giving only a performance state to the M3 core, right? > > Nope. In these cases we need to set a certain vol

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-28 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 11/23/2016 08:40 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 23-11-16, 18:03, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> On 11/23, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>> Vincent Guittot writes: On 23 November 2016 at 16:51, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Then, at least for this use case, we're talking about voltage, not some > unspecified

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-23 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 23-11-16, 18:03, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 11/23, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > Vincent Guittot writes: > > > On 23 November 2016 at 16:51, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > >> Then, at least for this use case, we're talking about voltage, not some > > >> unspecified units. > > In some cases we actually know

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-23 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 11/23, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Vincent Guittot writes: > > > On 23 November 2016 at 16:51, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> Vincent Guittot writes: > >> > >>> On 22 November 2016 at 19:12, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Viresh Kumar writes: > > > On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote: > >>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-23 Thread Kevin Hilman
Vincent Guittot writes: > On 23 November 2016 at 16:51, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Vincent Guittot writes: >> >>> On 22 November 2016 at 19:12, Kevin Hilman wrote: Viresh Kumar writes: > On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh K

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-23 Thread Vincent Guittot
On 23 November 2016 at 16:51, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Vincent Guittot writes: > >> On 22 November 2016 at 19:12, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>> Viresh Kumar writes: >>> On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Some platforms

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-23 Thread Kevin Hilman
Vincent Guittot writes: > On 22 November 2016 at 19:12, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Viresh Kumar writes: >> >>> On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of >>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-22 Thread Viresh Kumar
Thanks for explaining on my behalf Vincent :) On 22-11-16, 19:34, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 22 November 2016 at 19:12, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > I think the question is: what does the performance-level of a domain > > actually mean? Or, what are the units? There is no unit. If we have units lik

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-22 Thread Vincent Guittot
On 22 November 2016 at 19:12, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Viresh Kumar writes: > >> On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of >>> > their Power Domains. The perf

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-22 Thread Kevin Hilman
Viresh Kumar writes: > On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of >> > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive >> > integer va

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-21 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > 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 represent

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-21 Thread Rob Herring
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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. > > The power-domai

[PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

2016-11-18 Thread Viresh Kumar
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. The power-domains until now were only concentrating on the idle state management of the