Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1622349 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH V4 2/9] PM / Domains: Use OPP tables for power-domains

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH V4 2/9] PM / Domains: Use OPP tables for power-domains Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2017-04-12 19:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH V4 2/9] PM / Domains: Use OPP tables for power-domains Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-04-13 08:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH V4 2/9] PM / Domains: Use OPP tables for power-domains Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2017-04-13 15:50 +0200

#1622349 — Re: [PATCH V4 2/9] PM / Domains: Use OPP tables for power-domains

On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> The OPP table bindings contains all the necessary fields to support
> power-domains now. Update the power-domain bindings to allow
> "operating-points-v2" to be present within the power-domain node.
> 
> Also allow consumer devices, that don't use OPP tables, to specify the
> parent power-domain's performance level using the
> "domain-performance-state" property.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt     | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> index 723e1ad937da..5db112fa5d7c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> @@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ phandle arguments (so called PM domain specifiers) of length specified by the
>    domain's idle states. In the absence of this property, the domain would be
>    considered as capable of being powered-on or powered-off.
>  
> +- operating-points-v2 : This describes the performance states of a PM domain.
> +  Refer to ../opp/opp.txt for more information.
> +
>  Example:
>  
>  	power: power-controller@12340000 {
> @@ -118,4 +121,43 @@ The node above defines a typical PM domain consumer device, which is located
>  inside a PM domain with index 0 of a power controller represented by a node
>  with the label "power".
>  
> +Optional properties:
> +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
> +  power-domain performance level required by the consumer device. The integer
> +  value '0' represents the lowest performance level and the higher values
> +  represent higher performance levels. The value of "domain-performance-state"
> +  field should match the "domain-performance-state" field of one of the OPP
> +  nodes in the parent power-domain's OPP table.
> +
> +
> +
> +Example:
> +
> +	domain_opp_table: opp_table {
> +		compatible = "operating-points-v2";
> +
> +		opp@1 {
> +			domain-performance-state = <1>;
> +			opp-microvolt = <975000 970000 985000>;
> +		};
> +		opp@2 {
> +			domain-performance-state = <2>;
> +			opp-microvolt = <1075000 1000000 1085000>;
> +		};
> +	};
> +
> +	parent: power-controller@12340000 {
> +		compatible = "foo,power-controller";
> +		reg = <0x12340000 0x1000>;
> +		#power-domain-cells = <0>;
> +		operating-points-v2 = <&domain_opp_table>;

As mentioned in the other email, it would be good to consider
scalability with multiple power domains in a PM domain provider.
i.e case of #power-domain-cells = <1> or more

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1622734

On 12-04-17, 17:58, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > The OPP table bindings contains all the necessary fields to support
> > power-domains now. Update the power-domain bindings to allow
> > "operating-points-v2" to be present within the power-domain node.
> > 
> > Also allow consumer devices, that don't use OPP tables, to specify the
> > parent power-domain's performance level using the
> > "domain-performance-state" property.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt     | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> > index 723e1ad937da..5db112fa5d7c 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> > @@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ phandle arguments (so called PM domain specifiers) of length specified by the
> >    domain's idle states. In the absence of this property, the domain would be
> >    considered as capable of being powered-on or powered-off.
> >  
> > +- operating-points-v2 : This describes the performance states of a PM domain.
> > +  Refer to ../opp/opp.txt for more information.
> > +
> >  Example:
> >  
> >  	power: power-controller@12340000 {
> > @@ -118,4 +121,43 @@ The node above defines a typical PM domain consumer device, which is located
> >  inside a PM domain with index 0 of a power controller represented by a node
> >  with the label "power".
> >  
> > +Optional properties:
> > +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
> > +  power-domain performance level required by the consumer device. The integer
> > +  value '0' represents the lowest performance level and the higher values
> > +  represent higher performance levels. The value of "domain-performance-state"
> > +  field should match the "domain-performance-state" field of one of the OPP
> > +  nodes in the parent power-domain's OPP table.
> > +
> > +
> > +
> > +Example:
> > +
> > +	domain_opp_table: opp_table {
> > +		compatible = "operating-points-v2";
> > +
> > +		opp@1 {
> > +			domain-performance-state = <1>;
> > +			opp-microvolt = <975000 970000 985000>;
> > +		};
> > +		opp@2 {
> > +			domain-performance-state = <2>;
> > +			opp-microvolt = <1075000 1000000 1085000>;
> > +		};
> > +	};
> > +
> > +	parent: power-controller@12340000 {
> > +		compatible = "foo,power-controller";
> > +		reg = <0x12340000 0x1000>;
> > +		#power-domain-cells = <0>;
> > +		operating-points-v2 = <&domain_opp_table>;
> 
> As mentioned in the other email, it would be good to consider
> scalability with multiple power domains in a PM domain provider.
> i.e case of #power-domain-cells = <1> or more

Yeah, but that isn't supported for devices today. So no point
considering that today.

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1623033

On 13/04/17 07:03, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-04-17, 17:58, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> The OPP table bindings contains all the necessary fields to support
>>> power-domains now. Update the power-domain bindings to allow
>>> "operating-points-v2" to be present within the power-domain node.
>>>
>>> Also allow consumer devices, that don't use OPP tables, to specify the
>>> parent power-domain's performance level using the
>>> "domain-performance-state" property.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt     | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>> index 723e1ad937da..5db112fa5d7c 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>> @@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ phandle arguments (so called PM domain specifiers) of length specified by the
>>>    domain's idle states. In the absence of this property, the domain would be
>>>    considered as capable of being powered-on or powered-off.
>>>  
>>> +- operating-points-v2 : This describes the performance states of a PM domain.
>>> +  Refer to ../opp/opp.txt for more information.
>>> +
>>>  Example:
>>>  
>>>  	power: power-controller@12340000 {
>>> @@ -118,4 +121,43 @@ The node above defines a typical PM domain consumer device, which is located
>>>  inside a PM domain with index 0 of a power controller represented by a node
>>>  with the label "power".
>>>  
>>> +Optional properties:
>>> +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
>>> +  power-domain performance level required by the consumer device. The integer
>>> +  value '0' represents the lowest performance level and the higher values
>>> +  represent higher performance levels. The value of "domain-performance-state"
>>> +  field should match the "domain-performance-state" field of one of the OPP
>>> +  nodes in the parent power-domain's OPP table.
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +Example:
>>> +
>>> +	domain_opp_table: opp_table {
>>> +		compatible = "operating-points-v2";
>>> +
>>> +		opp@1 {
>>> +			domain-performance-state = <1>;
>>> +			opp-microvolt = <975000 970000 985000>;
>>> +		};
>>> +		opp@2 {
>>> +			domain-performance-state = <2>;
>>> +			opp-microvolt = <1075000 1000000 1085000>;
>>> +		};
>>> +	};
>>> +
>>> +	parent: power-controller@12340000 {
>>> +		compatible = "foo,power-controller";
>>> +		reg = <0x12340000 0x1000>;
>>> +		#power-domain-cells = <0>;
>>> +		operating-points-v2 = <&domain_opp_table>;
>>
>> As mentioned in the other email, it would be good to consider
>> scalability with multiple power domains in a PM domain provider.
>> i.e case of #power-domain-cells = <1> or more
> 
> Yeah, but that isn't supported for devices today. So no point
> considering that today.
> 

Do you mean we don't support power controllers with multiple power
domains ? If yes, we do support #power-domain-cells=<1 or more> clearly
from the binding and this change simple doesn't scale with such power
controllers/power-domain providers.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web