From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Turquette Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:01:51 +0000 Subject: Re: Device tree binding for DVFS table Message-Id: <20120712170151.GK2772@gmail.com> List-Id: References: <4FFD77FE.8050206@nvidia.com> <4FFD87BD.2030206@gmail.com> <20120711144449.GA23654@sirena.org.uk> <4FFE4FE6.20109@nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: <4FFE4FE6.20109@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 20120712-09:47, Prashant Gaikwad wrote: > On Wednesday 11 July 2012 08:14 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:03:41AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > >>I'd expect a single property with freq/volt pairs or 2 properties for > >>freq and voltage where there is a 1:1 relationship (freq N uses voltage N). > >I strongly agree - the current proposal is very hard to read due to the > >separation between the voltage and frequency values. Some devices do > >also need to scale multiple rails together, especially when this gets > >used for I/O devices. > > Multiple rails for single clock or would it be multiple clocks? > Voltage rails do not correspond to clocks. They correspond to the IP block in question (e.g. the "module" or "device" that consumes clocks and voltage). Regards, Mike From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mturquette@ti.com (Mike Turquette) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:01:51 -0700 Subject: Device tree binding for DVFS table In-Reply-To: <4FFE4FE6.20109@nvidia.com> References: <4FFD77FE.8050206@nvidia.com> <4FFD87BD.2030206@gmail.com> <20120711144449.GA23654@sirena.org.uk> <4FFE4FE6.20109@nvidia.com> Message-ID: <20120712170151.GK2772@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 20120712-09:47, Prashant Gaikwad wrote: > On Wednesday 11 July 2012 08:14 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:03:41AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > >>I'd expect a single property with freq/volt pairs or 2 properties for > >>freq and voltage where there is a 1:1 relationship (freq N uses voltage N). > >I strongly agree - the current proposal is very hard to read due to the > >separation between the voltage and frequency values. Some devices do > >also need to scale multiple rails together, especially when this gets > >used for I/O devices. > > Multiple rails for single clock or would it be multiple clocks? > Voltage rails do not correspond to clocks. They correspond to the IP block in question (e.g. the "module" or "device" that consumes clocks and voltage). Regards, Mike