Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:02:46 +0100 | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies |
| |
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 11:22:57AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote: [...]
> > True, the SCMI clock does not support discovery of clock tree: > (from 4.6.1 Clock management protocol background) > 'The protocol does not cover discovery of the clock tree, which must be > described through firmware tables instead.' [1] >
By firmware, spec refers to DT or ACPI, just to be clear.
> In this situation, would it make sense, instead of this binding from > patch 1/2, create a binding for internal firmware/scmi node? >
Why ? I prefer to solve this in a generic way and make it not scmi specific issue. If OPP idea Viresh suggested can be made to work, that would be good.
> Something like: > > firmware { > scmi { > ... > scmi-perf-dep { > compatible = "arm,scmi-perf-dependencies"; > cpu-perf-dep0 { > cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU0>, <&CPU1>; > }; > cpu-perf-dep1 { > cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU3>, <&CPU4>; > }; > cpu-perf-dep2 { > cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU7>; > }; > }; > }; > }; > > The code which is going to parse the binding would be inside the > scmi perf protocol code and used via API by scmi-cpufreq.c. >
Not completely against it, just need to understand how is this solved or will be solved for any DT(non SCMI) and why it can be generic.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |