On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26-12-17, 14:23, Rob Herring wrote: >> > cpu_opp_table: cpu_opp_table { >> > compatible = "operating-points-v2"; >> > opp-shared; >> > >> > opp00 { >> > opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <208000000>; >> > clock-latency-ns = <500000>; >> > power-domain-opp = <&domain_opp_1>; >> >> What is this? opp00 here is not a device. One OPP should not point to >> another. "power-domain-opp" is only supposed to appear in devices >> alongside power-domains properties. > > There are two type of devices: > > A.) With fixed performance state requirements and they will have the > new "required-opp" property in the device node itself as you said. > > B.) Devices which can do DVFS (CPU, MMC, LCD, etc) and those may need > a different performance state of the domain for their individual OPPs > and so we can't have this property in the device all the time. > > Does this make sense ?
No. From the definition for power-domain-opp "+- power-domain-opp: This contains phandle to one of the OPP nodes of the master + power domain. This specifies the minimum required OPP of the master domain for + the functioning of the device in this OPP (where this property is present). + This property can only be set for a device if the device node contains the + "power-domains" property. Also, either all or none of the OPP nodes in an OPP + table should have it set." In the above example, you are violating the next to last sentence. Though, I'm now confused by what the last sentence means. Rob
