On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 14:38:53 +0200
Dragan Simic [off-list ref] wrote:

Hello Andre,

On 2024-09-05 14:34, Andre Przywara wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 20:26:15 +0800
Chen-Yu Tsai [off-list ref] wrote:
  

quoted

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 8:17 PM Dragan Simic [off-list ref] 
wrote:  

quoted

Hello,

Just checking, any further thoughts about this patch?  

Sorry, but I feel like it's not really worth the churn. There's not
really a problem to be solved here. What you are arguing for is more
about aesthetics, and we could argue that having them separate makes
it easier to read and turn on/off.  

Yeah, I agree. If a board wants to support OPPs, they just have to 
include
a single file and define the CPU regulator, and that's a nice opt-in,
IMHO.
But having this patch would make it quite hard to opt out, I believe. 
For
Linux there are probably ways to disable DVFS nevertheless, but I am 
not
sure this is true in an OS agnostic pure-DT-only way.  

Thanks for your response.  The only thing that still makes me wonder
is why would a board want to opt out of DVFS?  Frankly, I'd consider
the design of the boards that must keep DVFS disabled broken.

Yes! Among the boards using Allwinner SoCs there are some, say less-optimal
designs ;-)

Cheers,
Andre

quoted

This could probably be solved, but same as Chen-Yu I don't see any good
enough reason for this patch in the first place.
  

quoted

And even though the GPU OPPs are in the dtsi, it's just one OPP acting
as a default clock rate.