On 01-06-21, 13:12, Stephan Gerhold wrote:

quoted

+    child4: consumer@12341000 {
+        compatible = "foo,consumer";
+        reg = <0x12341000 0x1000>;
+        power-domains = <&parent4>, <&parent5>;
+        assigned-performance-states = <0>, <256>;
+    };

Bjorn already asked this in v1 [1]:

quoted

May I ask how this is different from saying something like:

	required-opps = <&??>, <&rpmpd_opp_svs>;

and maybe this was already discussed further elsewhere. But I think at
the very least we need some clarification in the commit message + the
binding documentation how your new property relates to the existing
"required-opps" binding.

Because even if it might not be implemented at the moment,
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt actually also
specifies "required-opps" for device nodes e.g. with the following example:

	leaky-device0@12350000 {
		compatible = "foo,i-leak-current";
		reg = <0x12350000 0x1000>;
		power-domains = <&power 0>;
		required-opps = <&domain0_opp_0>;
	};

It looks like Viresh added that in commit e856f078bcf1
("OPP: Introduce "required-opp" property").

And in general I think it's a bit inconsistent that we usually refer to
performance states with phandles into the OPP table, but the
assigned-performance-states suddenly use "raw numbers".

I must have missed that discussion, sorry about that.

The required-opps property, when present in device's node directly, is about the
(default) OPPs to choose for that device's normal functioning as they may not do
DVFS.

Good point Stephan.

-- 
viresh