Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-03-01 Thread Rajendra Nayak
On 03/02/2017 04:43 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >> >> >> On 02/28/2017 09:22 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: [...] >>

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-03-01 Thread Rajendra Nayak
On 03/02/2017 04:43 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >> >> >> On 02/28/2017 09:22 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: [...] >> ---> Parent domain-2

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-03-01 Thread Rob Herring
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > > On 02/28/2017 09:22 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> [...] >>> > ---> Parent domain-2 (Contains

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-03-01 Thread Rob Herring
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > > On 02/28/2017 09:22 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> [...] >>> > ---> Parent domain-2 (Contains > Perfomance states) >

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-03-01 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 01-03-17, 09:45, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 28-02-17, 09:52, Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson > >> wrote: > >> > This comes from the early design

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-03-01 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 01-03-17, 09:45, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 28-02-17, 09:52, Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson > >> wrote: > >> > This comes from the early design of the generic PM domain, thus I > >> > assume we

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-03-01 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 28-02-17, 09:52, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > This comes from the early design of the generic PM domain, thus I >> > assume we have some HW

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-03-01 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 28-02-17, 09:52, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > This comes from the early design of the generic PM domain, thus I >> > assume we have some HW with such complex PM topology. However, I don't

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Rajendra Nayak
On 02/28/2017 09:22 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> [...] >> ---> Parent domain-2 (Contains Perfomance states) |

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Rajendra Nayak
On 02/28/2017 09:22 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> [...] >> ---> Parent domain-2 (Contains Perfomance states) | |

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 28-02-17, 08:10, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Viresh Kumar > wrote: > > That's what I did in V2, but then I turned it down considering the > > parent/child > > relationships we may have. > > > > There are multiple cases we can have: > > > >

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 28-02-17, 08:10, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Viresh Kumar > wrote: > > That's what I did in V2, but then I turned it down considering the > > parent/child > > relationships we may have. > > > > There are multiple cases we can have: > > > > A.) DeviceX --->

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 28-02-17, 09:52, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > This comes from the early design of the generic PM domain, thus I > > assume we have some HW with such complex PM topology. However, I don't > > know if it is actually being

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 28-02-17, 09:52, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > This comes from the early design of the generic PM domain, thus I > > assume we have some HW with such complex PM topology. However, I don't > > know if it is actually being used. > > > > Moreover,

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Rob, On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> [...] >> ---> Parent domain-2 (Contains Perfomance states)

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Rob, On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> [...] >> ---> Parent domain-2 (Contains Perfomance states) |

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Rob Herring
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > >>> ---> Parent domain-2 (Contains >>> Perfomance states) >>> | >>> | >>> C.) DeviceX --->

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Rob Herring
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > >>> ---> Parent domain-2 (Contains >>> Perfomance states) >>> | >>> | >>> C.) DeviceX ---> Parent-domain-1 | >>>

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Ulf Hansson
[...] >> ---> Parent domain-2 (Contains >> Perfomance states) >> | >> | >> C.) DeviceX ---> Parent-domain-1 | >> | >>

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Ulf Hansson
[...] >> ---> Parent domain-2 (Contains >> Perfomance states) >> | >> | >> C.) DeviceX ---> Parent-domain-1 | >> | >>

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Rob Herring
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 27-02-17, 18:39, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:36:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different >> > domain performance states at

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Rob Herring
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 27-02-17, 18:39, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:36:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different >> > domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 27-02-17, 18:39, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:36:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different > > domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their > > required domain performance state in their

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-28 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 27-02-17, 18:39, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:36:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different > > domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their > > required domain performance state in their

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-27 Thread Rob Herring
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:36:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different > domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their > required domain performance state in their nodes directly. > > But if the device needs

Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-27 Thread Rob Herring
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:36:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different > domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their > required domain performance state in their nodes directly. > > But if the device needs

[PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-24 Thread Viresh Kumar
If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their required domain performance state in their nodes directly. But if the device needs the capability of switching to different domain performance states, as

[PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes

2017-02-24 Thread Viresh Kumar
If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their required domain performance state in their nodes directly. But if the device needs the capability of switching to different domain performance states, as