From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] cpufreq: cpu0: Extend support beyond CPU0, V2 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:02:49 +0200 Message-ID: <2399813.Puj1SZWhCh@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <20140717093518.486ac244@free-electrons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:54980 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753245AbaGRAoc (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:44:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , Nishanth Menon , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Lists linaro-kernel , Simon Horman , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Boyd , Tomasz Figa , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas P Abraham , Rob Herring , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , Kukjin Kim , Arvind Chauhan , Sachin Kamat , Michal Simek On Thursday, July 17, 2014 01:11:45 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 17 July 2014 13:05, Thomas Petazzoni > wrote: > > Could you summarize what is the issue with the binding? > > > > At least for the case where we have one clock per CPU, the DT binding > > is really dead simple: each CPU node can carry a "clocks" property, and > > a "clock-latency" property. I really don't see why a long discussion is > > needed to agree on such a binding. > > > > Now, if the DT binding problem is related to those cases where you have > > siblings, i.e one clock controlling *some* of the CPUs, but not all > > CPUs or just one CPU, then maybe we could leave this aside for now, > > Yeah, we are stuck on that for now. > > > only support the following cases: > > > > * One clock for all CPUs > > * One clock for each CPU > > Yeah, so I also proposed this yesterday that we stick to only these > two implementations for now. And was looking at how would the > cpufreq-generic driver come to know about this. > > So, one way out now is to see if "clocks" property is defined in > multiple cpu nodes, if yes don't compare them and consider separate > clocks for each cpu. We don't have to try matching that to any other > node, as that's a very bad idea. Mike was already very upset with that :) > > @Stephen/Rafael: Does that sound any better? Ofcourse the final thing > is to get bindings to figure out relations between CPUs.. Before I apply anything in this area, I need a clear statement from the ARM people as a group on what the approach is going to be. Rafael