Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] PM / OPP: Introduce "domain-performance-state" binding to OPP nodes
From: Rajendra Nayak <hidden>
Date: 2017-03-01 07:50:40
Also in:
linux-pm, lkml
On 02/28/2017 09:22 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
[...]quoted
quoted
---> Parent domain-2 (Contains Perfomance states) | | C.) DeviceX ---> Parent-domain-1 | | | ---> Parent domain-3 (Contains Perfomance states)I'm a bit confused. How does a domain have 2 parent domains?This comes from the early design of the generic PM domain, thus I assume we have some HW with such complex PM topology. However, I don't know if it is actually being used. Moreover, the corresponding DT bindings for "power-domains" parents, can easily be extended to cover more than one parent. See more in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txtI could easily see device having 2 power domains. For example a cpu may have separate domains for RAM/caches and logic. And nesting of
yet the bindings for power-domains (for consumer devices) only allows for one powerdomain to be associated with a device.
power domains is certainly common, but a power domain being contained in 2 different parents? I don't even see how that is possible in the physical design. Now if we're mixing PM and power domains again and the cpu device is pointing to the cpu PM domain which contains 2 power domains, then certainly that is possible. Rob
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation