Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 12:21:54PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 30/04/17 13:49, Mark Brown wrote: > > DT doesn't much care about that though. > No sure about that, may be doesn't care about the internals, but we need > to care about interface, no ? Well, we need to at least describe what's

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 12:21:54PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 30/04/17 13:49, Mark Brown wrote: > > DT doesn't much care about that though. > No sure about that, may be doesn't care about the internals, but we need > to care about interface, no ? Well, we need to at least describe what's

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 30/04/17 13:49, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:42:49AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On 26/04/17 14:55, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> As I'm getting fed up of saying: if the values you are setting are not >>> voltages and do not behave like voltages then the hardware should not be

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 30/04/17 13:49, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:42:49AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On 26/04/17 14:55, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> As I'm getting fed up of saying: if the values you are setting are not >>> voltages and do not behave like voltages then the hardware should not be

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:42:49AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 26/04/17 14:55, Mark Brown wrote: > > As I'm getting fed up of saying: if the values you are setting are not > > voltages and do not behave like voltages then the hardware should not be > > represented as a voltage regulator since

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:42:49AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 26/04/17 14:55, Mark Brown wrote: > > As I'm getting fed up of saying: if the values you are setting are not > > voltages and do not behave like voltages then the hardware should not be > > represented as a voltage regulator since

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 28-04-17, 10:44, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Just thinking out loud, I can see platforms with have OPPs can move to > this binding in future eliminating the need to specify the clock and > regulators explicitly. So, I am not saying I against this idea, but I > see it might complicate the above case

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 28-04-17, 10:44, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Just thinking out loud, I can see platforms with have OPPs can move to > this binding in future eliminating the need to specify the clock and > regulators explicitly. So, I am not saying I against this idea, but I > see it might complicate the above case

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 28/04/17 06:00, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 27-04-17, 16:20, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >> >> On 04/27/2017 03:12 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> [].. >> > At qualcomm, we have an external M3 core (running its own firmware) which > controls > a few voltage rails (including AVS on those).

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 28/04/17 06:00, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 27-04-17, 16:20, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >> >> On 04/27/2017 03:12 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> [].. >> > At qualcomm, we have an external M3 core (running its own firmware) which > controls > a few voltage rails (including AVS on those).

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 27-04-17, 16:20, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > On 04/27/2017 03:12 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > [].. > > >> > >>> At qualcomm, we have an external M3 core (running its own firmware) which > >>> controls > >>> a few voltage rails (including AVS on those). The devices vote for the > >>> voltage

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 27-04-17, 16:20, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > On 04/27/2017 03:12 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > [].. > > >> > >>> At qualcomm, we have an external M3 core (running its own firmware) which > >>> controls > >>> a few voltage rails (including AVS on those). The devices vote for the > >>> voltage

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 04/27/2017 03:12 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: [].. >> >>> At qualcomm, we have an external M3 core (running its own firmware) which >>> controls >>> a few voltage rails (including AVS on those). The devices vote for the >>> voltage levels > > Thanks for explicitly mentioning this, but ... >

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 04/27/2017 03:12 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: [].. >> >>> At qualcomm, we have an external M3 core (running its own firmware) which >>> controls >>> a few voltage rails (including AVS on those). The devices vote for the >>> voltage levels > > Thanks for explicitly mentioning this, but ... >

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 26/04/17 14:55, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:02:39AM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >>> On 17/04/17 06:27, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > If we are looking this power-domains with performance as just some > *advanced regulators*, I don't like the complexity added. > >> +

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 26/04/17 14:55, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:02:39AM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >>> On 17/04/17 06:27, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > If we are looking this power-domains with performance as just some > *advanced regulators*, I don't like the complexity added. > >> +

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:02:39AM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > On 17/04/17 06:27, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>> If we are looking this power-domains with performance as just some > >>> *advanced regulators*, I don't like the complexity added. > + Mark > I don;t see any public discussions on

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:02:39AM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > On 17/04/17 06:27, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>> If we are looking this power-domains with performance as just some > >>> *advanced regulators*, I don't like the complexity added. > + Mark > I don;t see any public discussions on

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

> On 17/04/17 06:27, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 13-04-17, 14:42, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> What I was referring is about power domain provider with multiple power >>> domains(simply #power-domain-cells=<1> case as explained in the >>> power-domain specification. >> >> I am not sure if we should be

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

> On 17/04/17 06:27, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 13-04-17, 14:42, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> What I was referring is about power domain provider with multiple power >>> domains(simply #power-domain-cells=<1> case as explained in the >>> power-domain specification. >> >> I am not sure if we should be

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

Viresh Kumar writes: > On 20-04-17, 10:43, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Just that the term performance is closely related to frequency, it needs >> to be explicit on what *exactly* it means. As it stands now, >> it can be used for OPP as I explain which controls both but as

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

Viresh Kumar writes: > On 20-04-17, 10:43, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Just that the term performance is closely related to frequency, it needs >> to be explicit on what *exactly* it means. As it stands now, >> it can be used for OPP as I explain which controls both but as you >> clarify that's not

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 20-04-17, 10:43, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Just that the term performance is closely related to frequency, it needs > to be explicit on what *exactly* it means. As it stands now, > it can be used for OPP as I explain which controls both but as you > clarify that's not what it's designed for. We

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 20-04-17, 10:43, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Just that the term performance is closely related to frequency, it needs > to be explicit on what *exactly* it means. As it stands now, > it can be used for OPP as I explain which controls both but as you > clarify that's not what it's designed for. We

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 20/04/17 09:23, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Viresh, Sudeep, > > Sorry for jumping in late. > > [...] > >>> On the contrary(playing devil's advocate here), we can treat all >>> existing regulators alone as OPP then if you strip the voltages and >>> treat it as abstract number. >> >> But then we

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 20/04/17 09:23, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Viresh, Sudeep, > > Sorry for jumping in late. > > [...] > >>> On the contrary(playing devil's advocate here), we can treat all >>> existing regulators alone as OPP then if you strip the voltages and >>> treat it as abstract number. >> >> But then we

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 20/04/17 06:25, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 19-04-17, 14:58, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On 19/04/17 12:47, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> On 18-04-17, 17:01, Sudeep Holla wrote: [...] >> >> Yes, I completely agree. I am not saying the direction is wrong. I >> am saying it's confusing and binding needs

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 20/04/17 06:25, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 19-04-17, 14:58, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On 19/04/17 12:47, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> On 18-04-17, 17:01, Sudeep Holla wrote: [...] >> >> Yes, I completely agree. I am not saying the direction is wrong. I >> am saying it's confusing and binding needs

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 20-04-17, 10:23, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Viresh, Sudeep, > > Sorry for jumping in late. > > [...] > > >> On the contrary(playing devil's advocate here), we can treat all > >> existing regulators alone as OPP then if you strip the voltages and > >> treat it as abstract number. > > > > But then

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 20-04-17, 10:23, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Viresh, Sudeep, > > Sorry for jumping in late. > > [...] > > >> On the contrary(playing devil's advocate here), we can treat all > >> existing regulators alone as OPP then if you strip the voltages and > >> treat it as abstract number. > > > > But then

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

Viresh, Sudeep, Sorry for jumping in late. [...] >> On the contrary(playing devil's advocate here), we can treat all >> existing regulators alone as OPP then if you strip the voltages and >> treat it as abstract number. > > But then we are going to have lots of platform specific code which >

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

Viresh, Sudeep, Sorry for jumping in late. [...] >> On the contrary(playing devil's advocate here), we can treat all >> existing regulators alone as OPP then if you strip the voltages and >> treat it as abstract number. > > But then we are going to have lots of platform specific code which >

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 19-04-17, 14:58, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 19/04/17 12:47, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 18-04-17, 17:01, Sudeep Holla wrote: > >> Understood. I would incline towards reusing regulators we that's what is > > > > It can be just a regulator, but it can be anything else as well. That > > entity may

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 19-04-17, 14:58, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 19/04/17 12:47, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 18-04-17, 17:01, Sudeep Holla wrote: > >> Understood. I would incline towards reusing regulators we that's what is > > > > It can be just a regulator, but it can be anything else as well. That > > entity may

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 19/04/17 12:47, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 18-04-17, 17:01, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Understood. I would incline towards reusing regulators we that's what is > > It can be just a regulator, but it can be anything else as well. That > entity may have its own clock/volt/current tunables, etc. >

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 19/04/17 12:47, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 18-04-17, 17:01, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Understood. I would incline towards reusing regulators we that's what is > > It can be just a regulator, but it can be anything else as well. That > entity may have its own clock/volt/current tunables, etc. >

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 18-04-17, 17:01, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Understood. I would incline towards reusing regulators we that's what is It can be just a regulator, but it can be anything else as well. That entity may have its own clock/volt/current tunables, etc. > changed behind the scene. Calling this operating

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 18-04-17, 17:01, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Understood. I would incline towards reusing regulators we that's what is It can be just a regulator, but it can be anything else as well. That entity may have its own clock/volt/current tunables, etc. > changed behind the scene. Calling this operating

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 18-04-17, 17:03, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Was it posted externally ? Was there any objections for that approach ? > IMO that's better approach but if I am late to the party, I would like > to read through the discussions that happened on it(if any) Maybe Stephen can tell more about it. AFAIK,

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 18-04-17, 17:03, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Was it posted externally ? Was there any objections for that approach ? > IMO that's better approach but if I am late to the party, I would like > to read through the discussions that happened on it(if any) Maybe Stephen can tell more about it. AFAIK,

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 18-04-17, 17:01, Sudeep Holla wrote: > No, may be I was not so clear. I am just referring a power controller > that provides say 3 different power domains and are indexed 0 - 2. > The consumer just passes the index along with the phandle for the power > domain info. Ahh, I got you now. Will

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 18-04-17, 17:01, Sudeep Holla wrote: > No, may be I was not so clear. I am just referring a power controller > that provides say 3 different power domains and are indexed 0 - 2. > The consumer just passes the index along with the phandle for the power > domain info. Ahh, I got you now. Will

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 17/04/17 06:33, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 13-04-17, 14:43, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Interesting. My understand of power domain and in particular power >> domain performance was that it would control both. The abstract number >> you introduce would hide clocks and regulators. >> >> But if the

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 17/04/17 06:33, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 13-04-17, 14:43, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Interesting. My understand of power domain and in particular power >> domain performance was that it would control both. The abstract number >> you introduce would hide clocks and regulators. >> >> But if the

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 17/04/17 06:27, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 13-04-17, 14:42, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> What I was referring is about power domain provider with multiple power >> domains(simply #power-domain-cells=<1> case as explained in the >> power-domain specification. > > I am not sure if we should be looking

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 17/04/17 06:27, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 13-04-17, 14:42, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> What I was referring is about power domain provider with multiple power >> domains(simply #power-domain-cells=<1> case as explained in the >> power-domain specification. > > I am not sure if we should be looking

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 13-04-17, 14:43, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Interesting. My understand of power domain and in particular power > domain performance was that it would control both. The abstract number > you introduce would hide clocks and regulators. > > But if the concept treats it just as yet another regulator,

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 13-04-17, 14:43, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Interesting. My understand of power domain and in particular power > domain performance was that it would control both. The abstract number > you introduce would hide clocks and regulators. > > But if the concept treats it just as yet another regulator,

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 13-04-17, 14:42, Sudeep Holla wrote: > What I was referring is about power domain provider with multiple power > domains(simply #power-domain-cells=<1> case as explained in the > power-domain specification. I am not sure if we should be looking to target such a situation for now, as that would

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 13-04-17, 14:42, Sudeep Holla wrote: > What I was referring is about power domain provider with multiple power > domains(simply #power-domain-cells=<1> case as explained in the > power-domain specification. I am not sure if we should be looking to target such a situation for now, as that would

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 13/04/17 06:50, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12-04-17, 18:05, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> >> On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: [...] >> >> Thinking more about this above example, I think you need more >> explanation. So in the above case you have cpu with clock controller, >> power-domain

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 13/04/17 06:50, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12-04-17, 18:05, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> >> On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: [...] >> >> Thinking more about this above example, I think you need more >> explanation. So in the above case you have cpu with clock controller, >> power-domain

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 13/04/17 06:37, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12-04-17, 17:49, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt >>> index 63725498bd20..d0b95c9e1011 100644 >>> ---

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 13/04/17 06:37, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12-04-17, 17:49, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt >>> index 63725498bd20..d0b95c9e1011 100644 >>> ---

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 12-04-17, 18:05, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: > [...] > > > + > > +Example 7: domain-Performance-state: > > +(example: For 1GHz require domain state 1 and for 1.1 & 1.2 GHz require > > state 2) > > + > > +/ { > > + domain_opp_table: opp_table0 { > > +

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 12-04-17, 18:05, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: > [...] > > > + > > +Example 7: domain-Performance-state: > > +(example: For 1GHz require domain state 1 and for 1.1 & 1.2 GHz require > > state 2) > > + > > +/ { > > + domain_opp_table: opp_table0 { > > +

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 12-04-17, 17:49, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt > > index 63725498bd20..d0b95c9e1011 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt >

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 12-04-17, 17:49, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt > > index 63725498bd20..d0b95c9e1011 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt >

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: [...] > + > +Example 7: domain-Performance-state: > +(example: For 1GHz require domain state 1 and for 1.1 & 1.2 GHz require > state 2) > + > +/ { > + domain_opp_table: opp_table0 { > + compatible = "operating-points-v2"; > + > +

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: [...] > + > +Example 7: domain-Performance-state: > +(example: For 1GHz require domain state 1 and for 1.1 & 1.2 GHz require > state 2) > + > +/ { > + domain_opp_table: opp_table0 { > + compatible = "operating-points-v2"; > + > +

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's > better than OPP table for that. > > This patch allows power-domains to reuse OPP tables to express their > active states. The "opp-hz" property isn't a required property anymore > as

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's > better than OPP table for that. > > This patch allows power-domains to reuse OPP tables to express their > active states. The "opp-hz" property isn't a required property anymore > as

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

Fixing Kevin's email id :( On 10-04-17, 14:55, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 24-03-17, 10:44, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:02:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's > > > better than OPP table for that. > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

Fixing Kevin's email id :( On 10-04-17, 14:55, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 24-03-17, 10:44, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:02:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's > > > better than OPP table for that. > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 24-03-17, 10:44, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:02:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's > > better than OPP table for that. > > > > This patch allows power-domains to reuse OPP tables to express their > > active

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 24-03-17, 10:44, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:02:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's > > better than OPP table for that. > > > > This patch allows power-domains to reuse OPP tables to express their > > active

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:02:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's > better than OPP table for that. > > This patch allows power-domains to reuse OPP tables to express their > active states. The "opp-hz" property isn't a required

Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:02:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's > better than OPP table for that. > > This patch allows power-domains to reuse OPP tables to express their > active states. The "opp-hz" property isn't a required

[PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's better than OPP table for that. This patch allows power-domains to reuse OPP tables to express their active states. The "opp-hz" property isn't a required property anymore as power-domains may not always use them. Add a new

[PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

Power-domains need to express their active states in DT and what's better than OPP table for that. This patch allows power-domains to reuse OPP tables to express their active states. The "opp-hz" property isn't a required property anymore as power-domains may not always use them. Add a new