Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies

From: Sudeep Holla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:02:46 +0100

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 11:22:57AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote:
[...]

> 
> True, the SCMI clock does not support discovery of clock tree:
> (from 4.6.1 Clock management protocol background)
> 'The protocol does not cover discovery of the clock tree, which must be
> described through firmware tables instead.' [1]
>

By firmware, spec refers to DT or ACPI, just to be clear.

> In this situation, would it make sense, instead of this binding from
> patch 1/2, create a binding for internal firmware/scmi node?
>

Why ? I prefer to solve this in a generic way and make it not scmi
specific issue. If OPP idea Viresh suggested can be made to work, that
would be good.

> Something like:
> 
> firmware {
> 	scmi {
> 	...		
> 		scmi-perf-dep {
> 			compatible = "arm,scmi-perf-dependencies";
> 			cpu-perf-dep0 {
> 				cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU0>, <&CPU1>;
> 			};
> 			cpu-perf-dep1 {
> 				cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU3>, <&CPU4>;
> 			};
> 			cpu-perf-dep2 {
> 				cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU7>;
> 			};
> 		};
> 	};
> };
> 
> The code which is going to parse the binding would be inside the
> scmi perf protocol code and used via API by scmi-cpufreq.c.
>

Not completely against it, just need to understand how is this solved
or will be solved for any DT(non SCMI) and why it can be generic.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel