All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm,scmi: Do not use clocks for SCMI performance domains
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 08:34:05 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJ0OO68AbML7osOU3fNzJk3NhXYrWVmNwn8mwtNzSuf8g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201021181951.xu2igea2qbca3alf@bogus>

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 1:19 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:20:27AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 3:37 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > When is this not 1 (IOW, you only need this if variable)? How would it
> > be used outside SCMI (given it has a generic name)?
> >
> > > +
> > > +* Property arm,scmi-perf-domain
> >
> [...]
>
> > Really though, why can't you give SCMI a CPUs MPIDR and get its domain?
> >
>
> Now I remembered why we can't use MPIDR. The spec talks about perf domains
> for devices in generic. CPU is just a special device. We will still need
> a mechanism to get device performance domain. So MPIDR idea was dropped to
> keep it uniform across all the devices.

What implications to the binding are there for non-CPU devices? Do
they need more cells? How does this integrate our plethora of other PM
related bindings?

So somewhere in the firmware we're defining device X is domain 0,
device Y is domain 1, etc. Then we do this again in DT. Seems fragile
to define this information twice. I guess that's true for any number
space SCMI defines.

Rob

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm,scmi: Do not use clocks for SCMI performance domains
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 08:34:05 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJ0OO68AbML7osOU3fNzJk3NhXYrWVmNwn8mwtNzSuf8g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201021181951.xu2igea2qbca3alf@bogus>

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 1:19 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:20:27AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 3:37 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > When is this not 1 (IOW, you only need this if variable)? How would it
> > be used outside SCMI (given it has a generic name)?
> >
> > > +
> > > +* Property arm,scmi-perf-domain
> >
> [...]
>
> > Really though, why can't you give SCMI a CPUs MPIDR and get its domain?
> >
>
> Now I remembered why we can't use MPIDR. The spec talks about perf domains
> for devices in generic. CPU is just a special device. We will still need
> a mechanism to get device performance domain. So MPIDR idea was dropped to
> keep it uniform across all the devices.

What implications to the binding are there for non-CPU devices? Do
they need more cells? How does this integrate our plethora of other PM
related bindings?

So somewhere in the firmware we're defining device X is domain 0,
device Y is domain 1, etc. Then we do this again in DT. Seems fragile
to define this information twice. I guess that's true for any number
space SCMI defines.

Rob

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-23 13:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-20 20:37 [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm,scmi: Do not use clocks for SCMI performance domains Sudeep Holla
2020-10-20 20:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm, scmi: " Sudeep Holla
2020-10-20 20:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Move away from clock devicetree bindings Sudeep Holla
2020-10-20 20:37   ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-21 16:20 ` [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm,scmi: Do not use clocks for SCMI performance domains Rob Herring
2020-10-21 16:20   ` Rob Herring
2020-10-21 16:30   ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-21 16:30     ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-23 13:21     ` Rob Herring
2020-10-23 13:21       ` Rob Herring
2020-10-23 13:55       ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-23 13:55         ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-23 14:58       ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-23 14:58         ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-21 18:19   ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-21 18:19     ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-23 13:34     ` Rob Herring [this message]
2020-10-23 13:34       ` Rob Herring
2020-10-23 14:27       ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-23 14:27         ` Sudeep Holla

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=CAL_JsqJ0OO68AbML7osOU3fNzJk3NhXYrWVmNwn8mwtNzSuf8g@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@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: link
Be 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.