Re: [PATCH V3 00/10] PM: Create the AVS(Adaptive Voltage Scaling)

["J, KEERTHY" <j-keerthy@ti.com>]

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:01:17PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> writes:
>>
>>> > But presumably these things should integrate somehow - for example,
>>> > should devfreq and cpufreq be providing inputs into what AVS is doing,
>>> > and if so how?
>>
>>> The way it is currently designed, cpufreq/devfreq/regulator layers don't
>>> need to know about AVS.
>>
>> Yes, and that was a part of my concern, but see below.
>>
>>> The higher-level layers only know about the "nominal" voltage.  AVS
>>> hardware does automatic, adaptive, micro-adjustments around that nominal
>>> voltage, and these micro-adjustments are managed by the AVS hardware
>>> sending commands to the PMIC.  (specifically, on OMAP, the AVS sensors
>>> provide inputs to the voltage processor (VP) which provide inputs to the
>>> voltage controller (VC) which sends commands to the PMIC[1].)
>>
>> Right, that's what I'd understood it to be.
>>
>>> The driver proposed here is primarily for initializing the various
>>> parameters/sensitivity/etc. of the AVS hardware, but the actual voltage
>>> adjustments are done in hardware by VC/VP.
>>
>> It's not just a driver, though - it's also creating this power/avs
>> thing, though now I look at the code rather than just its shape there's
>> not actually an abstraction being added here, it's mostly just straight
>> code motion of the arch/arm code that's there already.  The changelog
>> and the shape of the code make it sound like this is intended to be
>> somewhat generic when really it's providing some OMAP specific tuning
>> for the device which is much less of a concern.
>>
>> I guess for now it's probably OK to just clarify in the documentation
>> and say that whoever adds the second driver has to work on making this
>> generic :)
>
> Agreed.
>
> In a different thread (which I can't seem to find now) we discussed this
> as well, so it just sounds like the changelog should clarify this a bit
> better.

Kevin/Mark,

Thanks for the feedback. I will add more documentation
to clarify this aspect. Please let me know if there are any more
things to be taken care of in this patch set.

>
> Kevin
>
>> This does also sound rather like it's in a similar area to the current
>> management work which Durgadoss R (CCed) was working on, though with a
>> slightly different application and in the OMAP case it's pretty much all
>> hidden in the external processor.
>



-- 
Regards and Thanks,
Keerthy