On 12/21/2018 2:59 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Rob Herring (2018-12-19 15:47:25)
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:40 PM Doug Anderson dianders@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:40 PM Doug Anderson dianders@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:09 PM Rob Herring robh@kernel.org wrote: ...but it does have a frequency, doesn't it?
- compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level";
- opp-710000000 {
opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <710000000>;qcom,level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_TURBO_L1>;- };
Ah, I perhaps see the confusion. So Rajendra's usage of "operating-points-v2-qcom-level" [1] doesn't have a frequency but Jordan's do. So I guess it makes sense that Jordan's have the fallback compatible but Rajendra's don't?
Is having it useful to s/w that doesn't understand "operating-points-v2-qcom-level"? If so, then add "operating-points-v2". If not, then don't.
The only benefit I see in having "operating-points-v2" is that we don't need to update the of_skipped_node_table[] in drivers/platform/of.c to have all the variants of operating-points-v2-* when they decide to not use anything from the "base" binding.
If that fails to work because opp-hz is required for the "operating-points-v2" binding but sometimes operating-points-v2-qcom-level doesn't require it I guess we need to update the skip table or make some generic property like 'this-is-not-a-device' that these various data tables in DT can be marked with so we don't make platform devices for them.
Regardless of the above, we should update the binding for operating-points-v2-qcom-level to say that opp-hz isn't always required when the qcom-level compatible is present. It looks like it just says that it builds on top of the opp binding so that's not obvious.
Sure, I can respin with those details added in. So I am guessing the conclusion is to use a fallback "operating-points-v2" compatible *only* when we do have opp-hz along with qcom,level (as in the case with gpu) and not have a fallback compatible in cases when we don't have opp-hz (as in the case of rpm power domains)? That seems a little inconsistent, and given Rob said either way is fine, just do one way or the other and not both, I am inclined to think we should just have a "operating-points-v2-qcom-level" and no fallback compatible. Does that make sense?
linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel