On 13/04/17 07:03, Viresh Kumar wrote:
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 viresh.kumar@linaro.org
.../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.
Do you mean we don't support power controllers with multiple power domains ? If yes, we do support #power-domain-cells=<1 or more> clearly from the binding and this change simple doesn't scale with such power controllers/power-domain providers.