Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:42:02 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Cc:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Peter Chen <Peter.Chen@nxp.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com>,
        Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart@gmail.com>,
        linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        driverdevel <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
        Linux USB List <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-tegra <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/30] Introduce core voltage scaling for NVIDIA
 Tegra20/30 SoCs
Message-ID: <20201109051202.e4lkosy6kk334akq@vireshk-i7>
References: <20201104234427.26477-1-digetx@gmail.com>
 <CAPDyKFr7qTU2RPhA_ZrbCayoTTNUEno1zdmvmv+8HBe-Owrfeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <cd147ab0-1304-a491-7a56-ee6199c02d32@gmail.com>
 <2716c195-083a-112f-f1e5-2f6b7152a4b5@gmail.com>
 <20201109044354.ljd5pomhob6b7u5v@vireshk-i7>
 <713b319e-bb7b-4743-59f0-b9892c3da92d@gmail.com>
 <aba1fcac-74b8-f370-ab45-312975da66e6@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <aba1fcac-74b8-f370-ab45-312975da66e6@gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 09-11-20, 08:10, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 09.11.2020 07:47, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
> > 09.11.2020 07:43, Viresh Kumar пишет:
> >> On 08-11-20, 15:19, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >>> I took a detailed look at the GENPD and tried to implement it. Here is
> >>> what was found:
> >>>
> >>> 1. GENPD framework doesn't aggregate performance requests from the
> >>> attached devices. This means that if deviceA requests performance state
> >>> 10 and then deviceB requests state 3, then framework will set domain's
> >>> state to 3 instead of 10.
> >>
> >> It does. Look at _genpd_reeval_performance_state().
> >>
> > 
> > Thanks, I probably had a bug in the quick prototype and then overlooked
> > that function.
> > 
> 
> If a non-hardware device-tree node is okay to have for the domain, then
> I can try again.
> 
> What I also haven't mentioned is that GENPD adds some extra complexity
> to some drivers (3d, video decoder) because we will need to handle both
> new GENPD and legacy Tegra specific pre-genpd era domains.
> 
> I'm also not exactly sure how the topology of domains should look like
> because Tegra has a power-controller (PMC) which manages power rail of a
> few hardware units. Perhaps it should be
> 
>   device -> PMC domain -> CORE domain
> 
> but not exactly sure for now.

I am also confused on if it should be a domain or regulator, but that
is for Ulf to tell :)

-- 
viresh