Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1589731
| From | Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes |
| Date | 2017-02-28 20:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tfVWy-rZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <tfE9j-53z-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tfL18-1He-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tfQNc-5z5-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tfRJf-6ds-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tfSvD-6NI-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi Rob,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>> ---> Parent domain-2 (Contains Perfomance states)
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>> C.) DeviceX ---> Parent-domain-1 |
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>> ---> Parent domain-3 (Contains Perfomance states)
>>>
>>> I'm a bit confused. How does a domain have 2 parent domains?
>>
>> 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, the corresponding DT bindings for "power-domains" parents,
>> can easily be extended to cover more than one parent. See more in
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>
> I could easily see device having 2 power domains. For example a cpu
> may have separate domains for RAM/caches and logic. And nesting of
> power domains is certainly common, but a power domain being contained
> in 2 different parents? I don't even see how that is possible in the
> physical design. Now if we're mixing PM and power domains again and
> the cpu device is pointing to the cpu PM domain which contains 2 power
> domains, then certainly that is possible.
One of them could be a power area, the other a clock domain.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH V3 0/7] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-02-24 10:20 +0100
[PATCH V3 5/7] PM / domain: Register for PM QOS performance notifier Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-02-24 10:20 +0100
[PATCH V3 1/7] PM / Domains: Introduce "performance-states" binding Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-02-24 10:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 1/7] PM / Domains: Introduce "performance-states" binding Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2017-02-28 02:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 1/7] PM / Domains: Introduce "performance-states" binding Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-02-28 06:40 +0100
[PATCH V3 7/7] PM / OPP: Add support to parse domain-performance-state Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-02-24 10:40 +0100
[PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-02-24 11:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2017-02-28 01:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-02-28 09:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2017-02-28 15:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> - 2017-02-28 16:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2017-02-28 17:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2017-02-28 20:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-03-01 07:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2017-03-01 09:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-03-01 10:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> - 2017-03-01 09:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2017-03-02 00:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> - 2017-03-02 04:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-03-01 08:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 0/7] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> - 2017-03-10 21:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH V3 0/7] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-03-13 11:50 +0100
csiph-web