Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 11/03, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 02-11-15, 11:21, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Ah I see that after looking at the previous thread. Perhaps we > > can add such information into the documentation so that people > > aren't misled into thinking they're limited to 32 bits? > > What about these changes:

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 11/03, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the > > node name be: > > > > opp@6 { > > > > At least it seems that the assumption is we can store all the > > possible combinations of OPP

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 11/03, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the > > node name be: > > > > opp@6 { > > > > At least it seems that the assumption is we can store all the > > possible combinations of OPP

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 11/03, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 02-11-15, 11:21, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Ah I see that after looking at the previous thread. Perhaps we > > can add such information into the documentation so that people > > aren't misled into thinking they're limited to 32 bits? > > What about these changes:

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the > node name be: > > opp@6 { > > At least it seems that the assumption is we can store all the > possible combinations of OPP values for a particular frequency in > the

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 02-11-15, 11:21, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Ah I see that after looking at the previous thread. Perhaps we > can add such information into the documentation so that people > aren't misled into thinking they're limited to 32 bits? What about these changes: diff --git

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 10/31, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 30-10-15, 14:49, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > I suppose if you wanted to have 64 possible combinations of some > > attribute you would just extend it to two 32 bit numbers in > > sequence? I don't see the limitation here, and hopefully there > > isn't a limitation so

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 10/31, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > Also, this makes it sound like opp-supported-hw is really just > > telling us if this is a supported frequency or not for the > > particular device we're running on. > > That's right. > > > The current wording makes

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 02-11-15, 09:13, Rob Herring wrote: > There is no special meaning, just convention which is the unit-address > should match the reg property address. I'm okay with an exception > here. Thanks, I will update this separately. -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 30-10-15, 14:49, Stephen Boyd wrote: > I suppose if you wanted to have 64 possible combinations of some > attribute you would just extend it to two 32 bit numbers in > sequence? I don't see the limitation here, and hopefully there > isn't a limitation so that we can specify sufficiently large >

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the >> node name be: >> >> opp@6 { > > I thought the @... had a special meaning and we might end up creating > some

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the >> node name be: >> >> opp@6 { > > I thought the @... had a special meaning and we might

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 30-10-15, 14:49, Stephen Boyd wrote: > I suppose if you wanted to have 64 possible combinations of some > attribute you would just extend it to two 32 bit numbers in > sequence? I don't see the limitation here, and hopefully there > isn't a limitation so that we can specify sufficiently large >

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 10/31, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 30-10-15, 14:49, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > I suppose if you wanted to have 64 possible combinations of some > > attribute you would just extend it to two 32 bit numbers in > > sequence? I don't see the limitation here, and hopefully there > > isn't a limitation so

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 10/31, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > Also, this makes it sound like opp-supported-hw is really just > > telling us if this is a supported frequency or not for the > > particular device we're running on. > > That's right. > > > The current wording makes

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 02-11-15, 09:13, Rob Herring wrote: > There is no special meaning, just convention which is the unit-address > should match the reg property address. I'm okay with an exception > here. Thanks, I will update this separately. -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 02-11-15, 11:21, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Ah I see that after looking at the previous thread. Perhaps we > can add such information into the documentation so that people > aren't misled into thinking they're limited to 32 bits? What about these changes: diff --git

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the > node name be: > > opp@6 { > > At least it seems that the assumption is we can store all the > possible combinations of OPP values for a particular frequency in > the

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the > node name be: > > opp@6 { I thought the @... had a special meaning and we might end up creating some device for the node then? Perhaps I am mistaken. But then, yeah it

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 30-10-15, 14:49, Stephen Boyd wrote: > I suppose if you wanted to have 64 possible combinations of some > attribute you would just extend it to two 32 bit numbers in > sequence? I don't see the limitation here, and hopefully there > isn't a limitation so that we can specify sufficiently large >

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 10/30, Viresh Kumar wrote: > + opp_table { > + compatible = "operating-points-v2"; > + status = "okay"; > + opp-shared; > + > + opp00 { A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the node name be: opp@6

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 10/30, Viresh Kumar wrote: > +- opp-supported-hw: User defined array containing a hierarchy of hardware > + version numbers, supported by the OPP. For example: a platform with > hierarchy > + of three levels of versions (A, B and C), this field should be like Z>, > + where X corresponds to

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 10/30, Viresh Kumar wrote: > +- opp-supported-hw: User defined array containing a hierarchy of hardware > + version numbers, supported by the OPP. For example: a platform with > hierarchy > + of three levels of versions (A, B and C), this field should be like Z>, > + where X corresponds to

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 10/30, Viresh Kumar wrote: > + opp_table { > + compatible = "operating-points-v2"; > + status = "okay"; > + opp-shared; > + > + opp00 { A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the node name be: opp@6

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 30-10-15, 14:49, Stephen Boyd wrote: > I suppose if you wanted to have 64 possible combinations of some > attribute you would just extend it to two 32 bit numbers in > sequence? I don't see the limitation here, and hopefully there > isn't a limitation so that we can specify sufficiently large >

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

On 30-10-15, 15:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > A side-note. I wonder if it would be better style to have the > node name be: > > opp@6 { I thought the @... had a special meaning and we might end up creating some device for the node then? Perhaps I am mistaken. But then, yeah it

[PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

We may want to enable only a subset of OPPs, from the bigger list of OPPs, based on what version of the hardware we are running on. This would enable us to not duplicate OPP tables for every version of the hardware we support. To enable that, this patch defines a new property 'opp-supported-hw'.

[PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add "opp-supported-hw" binding

We may want to enable only a subset of OPPs, from the bigger list of OPPs, based on what version of the hardware we are running on. This would enable us to not duplicate OPP tables for every version of the hardware we support. To enable that, this patch defines a new property 'opp-supported-hw'.