On 12-04-17, 17:58, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 20/03/17 09:32, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > The OPP table bindings contains all the necessary fields to support > > power-domains now. Update the power-domain bindings to allow > > "operating-points-v2" to be present within the power-domain node. > > > > Also allow consumer devices, that don't use OPP tables, to specify the > > parent power-domain's performance level using the > > "domain-performance-state" property. > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> > > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 42 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt > > index 723e1ad937da..5db112fa5d7c 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt > > @@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ phandle arguments (so called PM domain specifiers) of > > length specified by the > > domain's idle states. In the absence of this property, the domain would > > be > > considered as capable of being powered-on or powered-off. > > > > +- operating-points-v2 : This describes the performance states of a PM > > domain. > > + Refer to ../opp/opp.txt for more information. > > + > > Example: > > > > power: power-controller@12340000 { > > @@ -118,4 +121,43 @@ The node above defines a typical PM domain consumer > > device, which is located > > inside a PM domain with index 0 of a power controller represented by a node > > with the label "power". > > > > +Optional properties: > > +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the > > minimum > > + power-domain performance level required by the consumer device. The > > integer > > + value '0' represents the lowest performance level and the higher values > > + represent higher performance levels. The value of > > "domain-performance-state" > > + field should match the "domain-performance-state" field of one of the OPP > > + nodes in the parent power-domain's OPP table. > > + > > + > > + > > +Example: > > + > > + domain_opp_table: opp_table { > > + compatible = "operating-points-v2"; > > + > > + opp@1 { > > + domain-performance-state = <1>; > > + opp-microvolt = <975000 970000 985000>; > > + }; > > + opp@2 { > > + domain-performance-state = <2>; > > + opp-microvolt = <1075000 1000000 1085000>; > > + }; > > + }; > > + > > + parent: power-controller@12340000 { > > + compatible = "foo,power-controller"; > > + reg = <0x12340000 0x1000>; > > + #power-domain-cells = <0>; > > + operating-points-v2 = <&domain_opp_table>; > > As mentioned in the other email, it would be good to consider > scalability with multiple power domains in a PM domain provider. > i.e case of #power-domain-cells = <1> or more
Yeah, but that isn't supported for devices today. So no point considering that today. -- viresh
