From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756468AbcFTR5S (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:57:18 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43]:34513 "EHLO mail-pa0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754905AbcFTR5L (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:57:11 -0400 From: Kevin Hilman To: "Jon Medhurst \(Tixy\)" Cc: Sudeep Holla , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ulf Hansson , Mathieu Poirier , Suzuki K Poulose , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] firmware: scpi: add device power domain support using genpd Organization: BayLibre References: <1466073481-697-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1466073481-697-4-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1466099274.20208.65.camel@linaro.org> <5762E8F1.1040401@arm.com> <1466151552.2841.10.camel@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:50:37 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1466151552.2841.10.camel@linaro.org> (Jon Medhurst's message of "Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:19:12 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" writes: > On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 18:59 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> On 16/06/16 18:47, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: >> > On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 11:38 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> > [...] >> >> +enum scpi_power_domain_state { >> >> + SCPI_PD_STATE_ON = 0, >> >> + SCPI_PD_STATE_OFF = 3, >> >> +}; >> > >> > The SCPI doc defines the meaning of these numbers (0 and 3) in the 'Juno >> > specifics' chapter. So does these values need to come from device-tree >> > to allow for other hardware or SCP implementations? >> > >> >> Ah unfortunately true :(. I had not noticed that. But I would like to >> check if this can be made as part of the standard protocol. Adding such >> details to DT seems overkill and defeat of the whole purpose of the >> standard protocol. > > Well. it seems to me the 'standard protocol' is whatever the current > implementation of ARM's closed source SCP firmware is. It also seems to > me that people are making things up as they go along, without a clue as > to how to make things generic, robust and future proof. Basically, > Status Normal ARM Fucked Up. Fully agree here. Just because ARM calls it a "standard" does not make it so. As we've already seen[1], vendors are using initial/older/whatever versions of SCPI, so pushing the Juno version as standard just becuase it's in ARM's closed firmware is not the right way forward either. Kevin [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=146425562931515&w=2 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] firmware: scpi: add device power domain support using genpd Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:50:37 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1466073481-697-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1466073481-697-4-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1466099274.20208.65.camel@linaro.org> <5762E8F1.1040401@arm.com> <1466151552.2841.10.camel@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1466151552.2841.10.camel@linaro.org> (Jon Medhurst's message of "Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:19:12 +0100") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" Cc: Sudeep Holla , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ulf Hansson , Mathieu Poirier , Suzuki K Poulose , "Rafael J. Wysocki" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" writes: > On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 18:59 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> On 16/06/16 18:47, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: >> > On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 11:38 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> > [...] >> >> +enum scpi_power_domain_state { >> >> + SCPI_PD_STATE_ON = 0, >> >> + SCPI_PD_STATE_OFF = 3, >> >> +}; >> > >> > The SCPI doc defines the meaning of these numbers (0 and 3) in the 'Juno >> > specifics' chapter. So does these values need to come from device-tree >> > to allow for other hardware or SCP implementations? >> > >> >> Ah unfortunately true :(. I had not noticed that. But I would like to >> check if this can be made as part of the standard protocol. Adding such >> details to DT seems overkill and defeat of the whole purpose of the >> standard protocol. > > Well. it seems to me the 'standard protocol' is whatever the current > implementation of ARM's closed source SCP firmware is. It also seems to > me that people are making things up as they go along, without a clue as > to how to make things generic, robust and future proof. Basically, > Status Normal ARM Fucked Up. Fully agree here. Just because ARM calls it a "standard" does not make it so. As we've already seen[1], vendors are using initial/older/whatever versions of SCPI, so pushing the Juno version as standard just becuase it's in ARM's closed firmware is not the right way forward either. Kevin [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=146425562931515&w=2