On 27-12-17, 15:54, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26-12-17, 14:29, Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 03:51:30PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > >> > +On some platforms the exact frequency or voltage may be hidden from the > >> > OS by > >> > +the firmware and the "opp-hz" or the "opp-microvolt" properties may > >> > contain > >> > +magic values that represent the frequency or voltage in a firmware > >> > dependent > >> > +way, for example an index of an array in the firmware. > >> > >> I'm still not convinced this is a good idea. > > > > You were kind-of a few days back :) > > > > lkml.kernel.org/r/CAL_JsqK-qtAaM_Ou5NtxcWR3F_q=8rmpjum-vqgtkhbtwe5...@mail.gmail.com > > Yeah, well that was before Stephen said anything. > > > So here is the deal: > > > > - I proposed "domain-performance-state" property for this stuff > > initially. > > - But Kevin didn't like that and proposed reusing "opp-hz" and > > "opp-microvolt", which we all agreed to multiple times.. > > - And we are back to the same discussion now and its painful and time > > killing for all of us. > > There's bigger issues than where we put magic values as I raised in > the other patch. > > > TBH, I don't have too strong preferences about any of the suggestions > > you guys have and I need you guys to tell me what binding changes to > > do here and I will do that. > > > >> If you have firmware > >> partially managing things, then I think we should have platform specific > >> bindings or drivers. > > > > What about the initial idea then, like "performance-state" for the > > power domains ? All platforms will anyway replicate that binding only. > > I don't really know. I don't really care either. I'll probably go > along with what everyone agrees to, but the only one I see any > agreement from is Ulf. Also, it is pretty vague as to what platforms > will use this. You claimed you can support QCom scenarios, but there's > really no evidence that that is true.
Well, I sent out the code few days back based on these bindings and everyone can see how these bindings will get used now. > What I don't want to see is this > merged and then we need something more yet again in a few months for > another platform. Sure, I get your concerns. So what we need now is: - Stephen to start responding and clarify all the doubts he had as being silent isn't helping. - Or Rajendra to post patches which can prove that this is usable. The last time I had a chat with him, he confirmed that he will post patches after 4.15-rc1 and he should have posted them by now, but he didn't :( -- viresh
