From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752380AbdKBEta (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2017 00:49:30 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f196.google.com ([209.85.192.196]:49127 "EHLO mail-pf0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750854AbdKBEt1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2017 00:49:27 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SoaVL5JqeztEU7ldZA6sRN5f0ZEtBhBEjw1BOqMMfhCWp7ESrCX4VmOt9TQEIvZ0AvqsCr7g== Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 10:19:23 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Rob Herring Cc: Ulf Hansson , Kevin Hilman , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , Rafael Wysocki , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Vincent Guittot , Rajendra Nayak , Sudeep Holla , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC V7 2/2] OPP: Allow "opp-hz" and "opp-microvolt" to contain magic values Message-ID: <20171102044923.GW4240@vireshk-i7> References: <23ba51eaa6b52117458165dccc00a95cf8e86e1d.1509453284.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01-11-17, 15:39, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 31 October 2017 at 16:02, Rob Herring wrote: > >> Why not a new property for magic values? opp-magic? Don't we want to > >> know when we have magic values? > > > > I have kept a separate property since beginning (domain-performance-state) > > and moved to using these magic values in the existing field because of the > > suggestion Kevin gave earlier. > > > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149306082218001&w=2 > > > > I am not sure what to do now :) > > Okay, I guess reusing the properties is fine. Okay, great. > >> Wouldn't magic values in opp-hz get propagated to user space? > > > > The OPP core puts them in debugfs just to know how the OPPs are > > set. Otherwise, I am not sure that the power domain core/drivers would > > be exposing that to user space. > > I was thinking thru the cpufreq interface, but I guess this is not for cpus. Oh no. That's not the target here for sure. -- viresh