From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Santosh Shilimkar Subject: Re: [RFC] cpufreq: Add bindings for CPU clock sharing topology Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:40:32 -0400 Message-ID: <53CD1850.8000904@ti.com> References: <7e097b71342c9f5f63b07ff2e135eb7beb626aab.1405661369.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <53CA8D95.8010108@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Viresh Kumar , Rob Herring Cc: Nishanth Menon , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Boyd , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Grant Likely , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Mike Turquette , Sudeep Holla , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , Arvind Chauhan , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 20 July 2014 08:07 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 19 July 2014 20:54, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> Sorry for jumping late > > No, you aren't late. Its just 2 days old thread :) > >> but one of the point I was raising as part of your >> other series was to extend the CPU topology bindings to cover the voltage >> domain information which is probably what is really needed to let the >> CPUfreq extract the information. Not sure if it was already discussed. > > Not it wasn't. > >> After all the CPU clocks, cluster, clock-gating, power domains are pretty much >> related. So instead of having new binding for CPUFreq, I was wondering whether >> we can extend the CPU topology binding information to include missing information. >> Scheduler work anyway needs that information. >> >> Ref: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt >> >> Does that make sense ? > > Yeah it does, but I am not sure what exactly the bindings should look then. > So, the most basic step could be moving the new bindings to topology.txt > and name clock-master to dvfs-master. > > What else? > > If its going to be much controversial then we *can* go for just dvfs bindings > for now and then update them later. > Would be good to get others opinion. As you said if it is controversial then it will stall the development. Regards, Santosh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:40:32 -0400 Subject: [RFC] cpufreq: Add bindings for CPU clock sharing topology In-Reply-To: References: <7e097b71342c9f5f63b07ff2e135eb7beb626aab.1405661369.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <53CA8D95.8010108@ti.com> Message-ID: <53CD1850.8000904@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sunday 20 July 2014 08:07 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 19 July 2014 20:54, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> Sorry for jumping late > > No, you aren't late. Its just 2 days old thread :) > >> but one of the point I was raising as part of your >> other series was to extend the CPU topology bindings to cover the voltage >> domain information which is probably what is really needed to let the >> CPUfreq extract the information. Not sure if it was already discussed. > > Not it wasn't. > >> After all the CPU clocks, cluster, clock-gating, power domains are pretty much >> related. So instead of having new binding for CPUFreq, I was wondering whether >> we can extend the CPU topology binding information to include missing information. >> Scheduler work anyway needs that information. >> >> Ref: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt >> >> Does that make sense ? > > Yeah it does, but I am not sure what exactly the bindings should look then. > So, the most basic step could be moving the new bindings to topology.txt > and name clock-master to dvfs-master. > > What else? > > If its going to be much controversial then we *can* go for just dvfs bindings > for now and then update them later. > Would be good to get others opinion. As you said if it is controversial then it will stall the development. Regards, Santosh