Messages in this thread | | | From | Ulf Hansson <> | Date | Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:20:12 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] cpufreq: scmi: Add support to parse domain-id using #power-domain-cells |
| |
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 at 16:37, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 17:24, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 04:17:36PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > The performance domain-id can be described in DT using the power-domains > > > > property or the clock property. The latter is already supported, so let's > > > > add support for the power-domains too. > > > > > > > > > > How is this supposed to work for the CPUs ? The CPU power domains are > > > generally PSCI on most of the platforms and the one using OSI explicitly > > > need to specify the details while ones using PC will not need to. Also they > > > can never be performance domains too. So I am not sure if I am following this > > > correctly. > > > > Your concerns are certainly correct, I completely forgot about this. > > We need to specify what power-domain index belongs to what, by using > > power-domain-names in DT. So a CPU node, that has both psci for power > > and scmi for performance would then typically look like this: > > > > power-domains = <&CPU_PD0>, <&scmi_dvfs 4>; > > power-domain-names = "psci", "scmi"; > > That is completely backwards. Entries are named based on the consumer > side. The function of each clock or interrupt for example. Here your > entries are based on the provider which should be opaque to the > consumer.
Okay, so you would rather prefer something along the lines of the below?
power-domain-names = "power", "perf";
The "psci" name is already part of the current cpus DT binding (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml), so then it looks like that deserves an update too. Right?
Kind regards Uffe
| |