From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964903AbdBQXWd (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:22:33 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f172.google.com ([209.85.192.172]:34496 "EHLO mail-pf0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964871AbdBQXWb (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:22:31 -0500 From: Kevin Hilman To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Rafael Wysocki , ulf.hansson@linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , sboyd@codeaurora.org, nm@ti.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, lina.iyer@linaro.org, rnayak@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states Organization: BayLibre References: Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:22:19 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Viresh Kumar's message of "Thu, 9 Feb 2017 09:11:46 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (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 Viresh Kumar writes: > An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain > performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually merge the > supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will make things > easier to understand for all. The bindings can be decided and merged > later. > > The bindings [1] aren't discarded yet and this series is based on a > version of those only. The bindings are only used by the last patch, > which should not be applied and is only sent for completeness. > > IOW, this series doesn't have any dependencies and can be merged > straight away without waiting for the DT bindings. > > A brief summary of the problem this series is trying to solve: > > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state. And what about domains where the performance levels are represented by someting other than positive integer values? IMO, this implementation should start with a more generic approach (e.g. OPPs) that would be useful on more SoCs that just qcom. For SoCs like QCOM, you could use dummy/simplfied OPPs that represent the integer values passed to the qcom firmware. > We decided earlier that we should extend Power Domain framework to > support active state power management as well. The power-domains until > now were only concentrating on the idle state management of the device > and this needs to change in order to reuse the infrastructure of power > domains for active state management. Yes. Thanks for working on it! Kevin