From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DFBEC43457 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:03:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C2C2076E for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:03:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390200AbgJLQDA (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:03:00 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:55098 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388982AbgJLQDA (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:03:00 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5B631B; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F9653F719; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:02:46 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Lukasz Luba Cc: Rob Herring , Nicola Mazzucato , Viresh Kumar , Ionela Voinescu , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, vireshk@kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chris.redpath@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies Message-ID: <20201012160232.GF16519@bogus> References: <20200924095347.32148-3-nicola.mazzucato@arm.com> <20201006071909.3cgz7i5v35dgnuzn@vireshk-i7> <2417d7b5-bc58-fa30-192c-e5991ec22ce0@arm.com> <20201008110241.dcyxdtqqj7slwmnc@vireshk-i7> <20201008150317.GB20268@arm.com> <56846759-e3a6-9471-827d-27af0c3d410d@arm.com> <20201009053921.pkq4pcyrv4r7ylzu@vireshk-i7> <42e3c8e9-cadc-d013-1e1f-fa06af4a45ff@arm.com> <20201009140141.GA4048593@bogus> <2b7b6486-2898-1279-ce9f-9e7bd3512152@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2b7b6486-2898-1279-ce9f-9e7bd3512152@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC58C433E7 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:04:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B53262076C for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:04:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="ZkSH1Dvt" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B53262076C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=UFuwXHgVcSWasun4Nt0GG12EQzLrh6wTwx+cyEEERxA=; b=ZkSH1DvthCCcgv8rbm/aX2qrJ 7leH6YIC7s9DUYrH1/1XKhpcJf58m0P7H9vyvADiK2TESFEyklvxBoJCkqfqMcUZzHgjbHCoVKSYN Nm2/Q6Wc+2ZHcVTAYJ9HfUiQ6YzN3mcgl9WAeEX6IHskS4Xlw3BRKCFt4kIjiXwBpVURxg0pf31Ju oAqjxn0EhxxqUvF+ez3Uc+UoVKemHOH0giDHwmW6JwTKCExRjTyAcLCFpcOBZkDPmVPtEBffjT8U2 Kt4rB19dZNxh7HNQFXqDXjW9bRSqhPD3exdn/sMeEHJhc1uwGf2Ik/YJ0ciJSp9o74MmXb4aNrQmh xGj6aojsw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kS0Hw-00070q-47; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:03:04 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kS0Ht-0006zU-2A for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:03:02 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5B631B; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F9653F719; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:02:46 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Lukasz Luba Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies Message-ID: <20201012160232.GF16519@bogus> References: <20200924095347.32148-3-nicola.mazzucato@arm.com> <20201006071909.3cgz7i5v35dgnuzn@vireshk-i7> <2417d7b5-bc58-fa30-192c-e5991ec22ce0@arm.com> <20201008110241.dcyxdtqqj7slwmnc@vireshk-i7> <20201008150317.GB20268@arm.com> <56846759-e3a6-9471-827d-27af0c3d410d@arm.com> <20201009053921.pkq4pcyrv4r7ylzu@vireshk-i7> <42e3c8e9-cadc-d013-1e1f-fa06af4a45ff@arm.com> <20201009140141.GA4048593@bogus> <2b7b6486-2898-1279-ce9f-9e7bd3512152@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2b7b6486-2898-1279-ce9f-9e7bd3512152@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201012_120301_160934_997122F9 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 17.86 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Rob Herring , daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Viresh Kumar , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicola Mazzucato , vireshk@kernel.org, chris.redpath@arm.com, Ionela Voinescu , morten.rasmussen@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org 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 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel