From: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Michael Turquette <mike.turquette@linaro.org> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, rob.herring@linaro.org, arnd.bergmann@linaro.org, sboyd@codeaurora.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, grant.likely@linaro.org, olof@lixom.net, Sudeep.Holla@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, viswanath.puttagunta@linaro.org, l.stach@pengutronix.de, thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ta.omasab@gmail.com, kesavan.abhilash@gmail.com, khilman@linaro.org, santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 10:43:35 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <55561427.4030207@ti.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20150515141525.GK6348@linux> On 05/15/2015 09:15 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 14-05-15, 03:25, Michael Turquette wrote: >> No, we don't understand the problem space well enough to form an ABI. > > And why do you think so? We have been facing many problems since a > long time which we are trying to solve here. I would state "problem space is better defined now based on data made public by developers on various SoCs", this new binding seems to address majority of the concerns (esp with vendor specific extensions). OPP behavior is very SoC vendor specific -> it can only evolve with an extensible framework - which is what this new binding provides. This is something that was badly missing in the older binding and framework (I should blame myself for it), even though the previous definitions were simple, in effect it was inflexible to the detriment of many SoCs. Do we know 100% if the new binding solves every SoC's issues - we wont be able to do that unless folks speak up - but then, providing ability for vendor specific extension allows to consolidate and make common as necessary. Point blank rejection might be a bit of an overkill, IMHO. > > I agree that it might not be right to try too many things which may > not be required later, but most of the things we have now in new > bindings are actually required. > >> Putting this stuff in C without any philosophical constraints on whether >> or not we can change it later is the way to go. > > I don't agree to that :) > I second Viresh on this. Benefit of forcing data separation into device tree has provided the flexibility now to be able to loadup OPPs from bootloader OR over DTC overlay as desired - that is the right choice rather than embedding it within C code, providing kludgy extension options to provide dynamic data updates. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: nm@ti.com (Nishanth Menon) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 10:43:35 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <55561427.4030207@ti.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20150515141525.GK6348@linux> On 05/15/2015 09:15 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 14-05-15, 03:25, Michael Turquette wrote: >> No, we don't understand the problem space well enough to form an ABI. > > And why do you think so? We have been facing many problems since a > long time which we are trying to solve here. I would state "problem space is better defined now based on data made public by developers on various SoCs", this new binding seems to address majority of the concerns (esp with vendor specific extensions). OPP behavior is very SoC vendor specific -> it can only evolve with an extensible framework - which is what this new binding provides. This is something that was badly missing in the older binding and framework (I should blame myself for it), even though the previous definitions were simple, in effect it was inflexible to the detriment of many SoCs. Do we know 100% if the new binding solves every SoC's issues - we wont be able to do that unless folks speak up - but then, providing ability for vendor specific extension allows to consolidate and make common as necessary. Point blank rejection might be a bit of an overkill, IMHO. > > I agree that it might not be right to try too many things which may > not be required later, but most of the things we have now in new > bindings are actually required. > >> Putting this stuff in C without any philosophical constraints on whether >> or not we can change it later is the way to go. > > I don't agree to that :) > I second Viresh on this. Benefit of forcing data separation into device tree has provided the flexibility now to be able to loadup OPPs from bootloader OR over DTC overlay as desired - that is the right choice rather than embedding it within C code, providing kludgy extension options to provide dynamic data updates. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-15 15:43 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 124+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-04-30 12:07 [PATCH V4 0/3] OPP: Introduce OPP (V2) bindings Viresh Kumar 2015-04-30 12:07 ` Viresh Kumar [not found] ` <cover.1430394884.git.viresh.kumar-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> 2015-04-30 12:07 ` [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings Viresh Kumar 2015-04-30 12:07 ` Viresh Kumar [not found] ` <d225e73f183e01fa0b71e4b9248b6a19a3f7d697.1430394884.git.viresh.kumar-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> 2015-05-04 12:12 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-04 12:12 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-05 10:48 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-05 10:48 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-05 10:57 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-05 10:57 ` Mark Brown [not found] ` <20150505105714.GA22845-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org> 2015-05-05 11:43 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-05 11:43 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-05 17:12 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-05 17:12 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-06 6:53 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-06 6:53 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-07 5:52 ` Stephen Boyd 2015-05-07 5:52 ` Stephen Boyd 2015-05-07 11:02 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-07 11:02 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-07 21:18 ` Stephen Boyd 2015-05-07 21:18 ` Stephen Boyd 2015-05-07 22:18 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-07 22:18 ` Mark Brown [not found] ` <20150507221842.GW22845-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org> 2015-05-08 6:47 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-08 6:47 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-08 10:58 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-08 10:58 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-08 11:01 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-08 11:01 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-11 1:07 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-11 1:07 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-12 5:20 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-12 5:20 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-12 19:01 ` Michael Turquette 2015-05-12 19:01 ` Michael Turquette 2015-05-12 19:14 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-12 19:14 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-12 19:41 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-12 19:41 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-12 19:57 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-12 19:57 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-13 11:54 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-13 11:54 ` Mark Brown [not found] ` <20150513115422.GQ3066-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org> 2015-05-13 14:24 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-13 14:24 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-13 15:07 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-13 15:07 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-13 15:43 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-13 15:43 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-07 12:13 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-07 12:13 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-07 21:30 ` Stephen Boyd 2015-05-07 21:30 ` Stephen Boyd 2015-05-08 6:49 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-08 6:49 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-11 1:02 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-11 1:02 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-12 5:16 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-12 5:16 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-12 16:04 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-12 16:04 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-13 5:05 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-13 5:05 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-13 15:00 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-13 15:00 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-13 15:16 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-13 15:16 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-13 16:14 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-13 16:14 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-13 16:21 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-13 16:21 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-13 16:34 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-13 16:34 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-12 16:19 ` Felipe Balbi 2015-05-12 16:19 ` Felipe Balbi 2015-05-13 4:45 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-13 4:45 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-12 21:42 ` Michael Turquette 2015-05-12 21:42 ` Michael Turquette 2015-05-13 8:55 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-13 8:55 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-13 11:03 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-13 11:03 ` Mark Brown 2015-05-14 0:32 ` Michael Turquette 2015-05-14 0:32 ` Michael Turquette [not found] ` <CAKohpokeKtcJdrBcPZBBPR2zfJgpvuM_=wRaX5q1Uto2qx1oHQ@mail.gmail.com> 2015-05-15 14:15 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-15 14:15 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-15 15:43 ` Nishanth Menon [this message] 2015-05-15 15:43 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-15 17:27 ` Rob Herring 2015-05-15 17:27 ` Rob Herring 2015-05-21 6:02 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-21 6:02 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-22 14:04 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-22 14:04 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-22 16:04 ` Rob Herring 2015-05-22 16:04 ` Rob Herring 2015-05-22 17:42 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-22 17:42 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-26 5:25 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-26 5:25 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-20 0:51 ` Stephen Boyd 2015-05-20 0:51 ` Stephen Boyd 2015-05-20 2:07 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-20 2:07 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-20 19:39 ` Stephen Boyd 2015-05-20 19:39 ` Stephen Boyd 2015-05-21 4:33 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-21 4:33 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-25 11:59 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-25 11:59 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-04-30 12:08 ` [PATCH V4 2/3] OPP: Allow multiple OPP tables to be passed via DT Viresh Kumar 2015-04-30 12:08 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-12 16:09 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-12 16:09 ` Nishanth Menon 2015-05-13 4:41 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-13 4:41 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-20 0:52 ` Stephen Boyd 2015-05-20 0:52 ` Stephen Boyd 2015-04-30 12:08 ` [PATCH V4 3/3] OPP: Add 'opp-next' in operating-points-v2 bindings Viresh Kumar 2015-04-30 12:08 ` Viresh Kumar 2015-05-12 21:47 ` Michael Turquette 2015-05-12 21:47 ` Michael Turquette
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=55561427.4030207@ti.com \ --to=nm@ti.com \ --cc=Sudeep.Holla@arm.com \ --cc=arnd.bergmann@linaro.org \ --cc=broonie@kernel.org \ --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \ --cc=kesavan.abhilash@gmail.com \ --cc=khilman@linaro.org \ --cc=l.stach@pengutronix.de \ --cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mike.turquette@linaro.org \ --cc=olof@lixom.net \ --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \ --cc=rob.herring@linaro.org \ --cc=santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com \ --cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \ --cc=ta.omasab@gmail.com \ --cc=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \ --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \ --cc=viswanath.puttagunta@linaro.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.