Thread (68 messages) 68 messages, 4 authors, 2016-01-25

Re: [PATCH 04/17] PM / OPP: Introduce dev_pm_opp_get_max_volt_latency()

From: Stephen Boyd <hidden>
Date: 2016-01-21 02:43:30

On 01/20/2016 06:32 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 20-01-16, 16:20, Stephen Boyd wrote:
quoted
Ok, first off, I don't understand why the regulator and clock
pointers are in the struct device_opp instead of the struct
device_list_opp. I thought we wanted to make it possible for two
devices to share the same OPP table (device_opp), but have
physically different clocks and regulators (non opp-shared case)?
If we put the clock and regulator handles in the device_opp then
the opp table is limited to one device or a set of devices that
all share the same clock and regulators.
Not exactly. We wanted devices (with separate rails) to share the OPP
tables ONLY IN DT. So that the same thing isn't required to be copied
multiple times in DT, for example in case of Krait.

But the code isn't supposed to shared device_opp structure at all.
There is one device_opp structure for a groups of devices that share
their OPPs and their clock/voltage rails. opp_device_list is
representing individual devices that share the same device_opp thing.

And this works pretty well and I don't think we should touch it now.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying. I see the code matches that description.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help