[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: power: Introduce 'assigned-performance-states' property
Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2020-08-05 01:13:06)
> On 8/5/2020 12:09 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2020-08-04 04:46:54)
> >
> >> + device's performance, also known as DVFS techniques. The list of performance
> >> + state values should correspond to the list of power domains specified as part
> >> + of the power-domains property.
> >
> > This is different than assigned-clock-rates. I guess that's OK because
> > we don't need to assign parents with more specifiers. Maybe it should be
> > worded more strongly to clearly state that each cell corresponds to one
> > power domain? And that it should match the opp-level inside any OPP
> > table for the power domain?
> Sure, I'll reword it to make it clear that we need the same number of cells
> as power-domains, and as you pointed out below that 0 corresponds to not setting
> anything.
> For the matching of opp-level inside the OPP table of the power-domain, I don't
> think from the power-domain bindings we limit providers with only OPP tables to
> support performance states? It could be just a range that the provider manages
> internally?

Ok. The example made it match so maybe that can be clarified as well
that it doesn't need to match any OPP table performance state.

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-06 01:59    [W:2.086 / U:0.756 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site