On 20-04-17, 10:23, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Viresh, Sudeep, > > Sorry for jumping in late. > > [...] > > >> On the contrary(playing devil's advocate here), we can treat all > >> existing regulators alone as OPP then if you strip the voltages and > >> treat it as abstract number. > > > > But then we are going to have lots of platform specific code which > > will program the actual hardware, etc. Which is all handled by the > > regulator framework. Also note that the regulator core selects the > > common voltage selected by all the children, while we want to select > > the highest performance point here. > > If I understand correctly, Sudeep is not convinced that this is about > PM domain regulator(s), right? > > To me there is no doubt, these regulators is exactly the definition of > PM domain regulators. > > That said, long time ago we have decided PM domain regulator shall be > modeled as exactly that. From DT point of view, this means the handle > to the PM domain regulator belongs in the node of the PM domain > controller - and not in each device's node of those belonging to the > PM domain. > > Isn't that what this discussion really boils down to? Or maybe I am > not getting it.
Maybe not. I think Sudeep understands that this is about PM domain regulators only but he is asking why aren't we solving this problem using regulators framework but performance-levels instead. > > > > Even if we have to configure both clock and voltage for the power > > domain using standard clk/regulator frameworks, OPP will work just > > fine as it will do that then. So, its not that we are bypassing the > > regulator framework here. It will be used if we have the voltages > > available for the power-domain's performance states. > > > >> So if the firmware handles more than just > >> regulators, I agree. > > > > I don't know the internals of that really. > > > >> At the same time, I would have preferred firmware > >> to even abstract the frequency like ACPI CPPC. > > > > Frequency isn't required to be configured for the cases I know, but it > > can be in future implementations. > > To me using OPP tables makes sense as it gives us the flexibility that > is needed. If I understand correct, that was also Kevin's point. Right. -- viresh
