Quoting Viresh Kumar (2014-07-20 05:07:32)
On 19 July 2014 20:54, Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilimkar@ti.com wrote:
Sorry for jumping late
No, you aren't late. Its just 2 days old thread :)
but one of the point I was raising as part of your other series was to extend the CPU topology bindings to cover the voltage domain information which is probably what is really needed to let the CPUfreq extract the information. Not sure if it was already discussed.
Not it wasn't.
After all the CPU clocks, cluster, clock-gating, power domains are pretty much related. So instead of having new binding for CPUFreq, I was wondering whether we can extend the CPU topology binding information to include missing information. Scheduler work anyway needs that information.
Ref: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
Does that make sense ?
Yeah it does, but I am not sure what exactly the bindings should look then. So, the most basic step could be moving the new bindings to topology.txt and name clock-master to dvfs-master.
What else?
If we're going to model the hardware then the binding should not use the CPU phandles in "clock-master" or "dvfs-master". The correct thing to model for a given CPU is which clock consumes. It's not accurate to say that one CPU is the "master", at least not in this context.
A previous approach tried to compare struct clk pointers, which is a bad idea since those are just cookies and should not be deref'd by drivers. However a similar approach would be to compare the phandle, right?
Regards, Mike
If its going to be much controversial then we *can* go for just dvfs bindings for now and then update them later.
Doesn't make sense? :)