Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] rockchip/soc/drivers: Add DTPM description for rk3399 | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Date | Wed, 5 Jan 2022 12:25:56 +0100 |
| |
On 31/12/2021 14:57, Ulf Hansson wrote:
[ ... ]
>> +static struct dtpm_node __initdata rk3399_hierarchy[] = { >> + [0]{ .name = "rk3399" }, >> + [1]{ .name = "package", >> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[0] }, >> + [2]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu@0", >> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT, >> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] }, >> + [3]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu@1", >> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT, >> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] }, >> + [4]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu@2", >> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT, >> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] }, >> + [5]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu@3", >> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT, >> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] }, >> + [6]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu@100", >> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT, >> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] }, >> + [7]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu@101", >> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT, >> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] }, >> + [8]{ .name = "rockchip,rk3399-mali", >> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT, >> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] }, >> + [9]{ }, >> +}; > > I will not object to this, as in the end this seems like what we need > to do, unless we can describe things through generic DT bindings for > DTPM. Right?
Yes, as asked by Rob, we should try to describe in the kernel first.
> Although, if the above is correct, I need to stress that I am kind of > worried that this doesn't really scale. We would need to copy lots of > information from the DTS files into platform specific c-files, to be > able to describe the DTPM hierarchy.
TBH I don't think it is a lot and it is a __initdata. At least we should begin with something and see later how to consolidate if it is needed, no?
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
| |