Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 3 Jul 2018 15:12:16 +0800
From:   Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>, arm@kernel.org,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chris.redpath@arm.com,
        ionela.voinescu@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] arm: dts: imx: Add missing OPP properties for CPUs
Message-ID: <20180703071215.GM4348@dragon>
References: <cover.1527244200.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <264124e14b966a1bbc07c364fbd89fc55aa765e6.1527244201.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <1527248760.3472.6.camel@pengutronix.de>
 <20180528110739.ewmhlf72sl7u5ju7@vireshk-i7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180528110739.ewmhlf72sl7u5ju7@vireshk-i7>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 04:37:39PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
> 
> On 25-05-18, 13:46, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > This is a lot of duplicate information for what is effectively a shared
> >  cluster wide thing. This does absolutely not _feel_ right.
> 
> I cannot agree more :)
> 
> > What problem are you solving here? Why do we need all this duplicate
> > information? Why can't we fix it by falling back to looking at cpu0 if
> > needed?
> 
> Let me try explaining one of the problem scenarios to you as your
> platform is a single cluster one. Make cpufreq driver as module, don't
> insert it, hotplug out CPU0 and now insert the cpufreq driver. The
> cpufreq core will try adding the cpufreq policy for CPU1 but wouldn't
> find the required information in the DT node of CPU1 and so will fail
> or behave incorrectly.
> 
> We can't look at CPU0 as we don't know they are related at all.
> Nothing tells that to us. The right solution to fix the duplication is
> to move to OPP-v2 bindings, which allow us to create a single OPP
> table node and refer to it from all the CPU nodes. Because in case of
> imx platforms getting updated here, we use the old and some platforms
> specific frequency tables, we have to duplicate it everywhere.
> 
> But looking from DT otherwise, all the device should anyway have all
> the information required right in their node. That can be simplified
> with things like phandle to opp-v2 node, but still everything needs to
> be there. We shouldn't really rely on other CPU nodes to make it work.
> That would be an incomplete definition of the hardware IMHO.

Lucas,

Are you fine with the patch now considering the respond from Viresh?

Shawn