Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-11-15 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 15-11-16, 16:11, Dave Gerlach wrote: > On 11/15/2016 12:56 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >On 11/15, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>There are two important pieces of information we need for multiple > >>regulator support: > >>- Which regulator in the consumer node corresponds to which entry in > >> the OPP

Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-11-15 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 15-11-16, 10:56, Stephen Boyd wrote: > This is also possible from C code though. Right and this is what this patchset is doing right now. To make it clear, the order of regulator names in the call dev_pm_opp_set_regulators() is used now to communicate the order in which entries are present in t

Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-11-15 Thread Dave Gerlach
Hi, On 11/15/2016 12:56 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: On 11/15, Viresh Kumar wrote: On 14-11-16, 18:13, Stephen Boyd wrote: On 11/14, Rob Herring wrote: On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 08:41:20AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: On 10-11-16, 14:51, Stephen Boyd wrote: No. The supply names (and also clock names

Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-11-15 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 11/15, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 14-11-16, 18:13, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 11/14, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 08:41:20AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > On 10-11-16, 14:51, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > > > > > No. The supply names (and also clock names/index) should

Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-11-14 Thread Viresh Kumar
First of all, thanks to all of you for commenting here. Please continue doing so as I want to finish this stuff quickly, it has already killed a lot of time :) On 14-11-16, 18:13, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 11/14, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 08:41:20AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >

Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-11-14 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 11/14, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 08:41:20AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 10-11-16, 14:51, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > No. The supply names (and also clock names/index) should be left > > > up to the consumer of the OPP table. We don't want to encode any > > > sort of

Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-11-14 Thread Rob Herring
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 08:41:20AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10-11-16, 14:51, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 11/10, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 10-11-16, 16:36, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 09:34:40AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > On 09-11-16, 14:58, Mark Brown wrote:

Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-11-10 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 10-11-16, 14:51, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 11/10, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 10-11-16, 16:36, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 09:34:40AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > On 09-11-16, 14:58, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:02:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:

Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-11-10 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 11/10, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10-11-16, 16:36, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 09:34:40AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 09-11-16, 14:58, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:02:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > > > + Entries for multiple regulators

Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-11-10 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 10-11-16, 16:36, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 09:34:40AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 09-11-16, 14:58, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:02:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > + Entries for multiple regulators shall be provided in the same field > >

Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-11-10 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 09:34:40AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 09-11-16, 14:58, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:02:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > + Entries for multiple regulators shall be provided in the same field > > > separated > > > + by angular brackets <>. The

Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-11-09 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 09-11-16, 14:58, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:02:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > + Entries for multiple regulators shall be provided in the same field > > separated > > + by angular brackets <>. The OPP binding doesn't provide any provisions to > > + relate the value

Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-11-09 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:02:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > + Entries for multiple regulators shall be provided in the same field > separated > + by angular brackets <>. The OPP binding doesn't provide any provisions to > + relate the values to their power supplies or the order in which th

[PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device

2016-10-25 Thread Viresh Kumar
On certain platforms (like TI), DVFS for a single device (CPU) requires configuring multiple power supplies. The OPP bindings already contains binding and example to explain this case, but it isn't sufficient. For example, there is no way for the code parsing these bindings to know which voltage v