[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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 if they are represented as
> > voltage regulators things will expect to be able to control them as
> > voltage regulators. This hardware is quite clearly providing OPPs
> > directly, I would expect this to be handled in the OPP code somehow.

> I agree with you that we need to be absolutely sure on what it actually
> represents.

> But as more and more platform are pushing such power controls to
> dedicated M3 or similar processors, we need abstraction. Though we are
> controlling hardware, we do so indirectly. Since there were discussions
> around device tree representing hardware vs platform, I tend to think,
> we are moving towards platform(something similar to ACPI).

I don't think there's a meaningful hardware/platform distinction here -
in terms of what DT is describing the platform bit is just what the
hardware (the microcontrollers) happen to do, DT doesn't much care about
that though.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-30 14:52    [W:0.130 / U:1.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site