Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230607124628.157465-1-ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
 <20230607124628.157465-10-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> <20230614230044.GA3019052-robh@kernel.org>
 <CAPDyKFoDQ12yUB-3f_V222kcUivP_NUcvcM+8s7CraLaBy7tBQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL_Jsq+GMA62hey6+KYMmVSWsDEkGfD0B=0V9AbdmRqdE6VW1g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL_Jsq+GMA62hey6+KYMmVSWsDEkGfD0B=0V9AbdmRqdE6VW1g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:35:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFrk92v-d63L8vKyyaVv4LQfG74otWx+LUYLo12m-Norgw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/16] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Extend bindings
 for protocol@13
To:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Nikunj Kela <nkela@quicinc.com>,
        Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@quicinc.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 at 19:15, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 3:11=E2=80=AFAM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.o=
rg> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 at 01:00, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 02:46:21PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > > The protocol@13 node is describing the performance scaling option f=
or the
> > > > ARM SCMI interface, as a clock provider. This is unnecessary limiti=
ng, as
> > > > performance scaling is in many cases not limited to switching a clo=
ck's
> > > > frequency.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, let's extend the binding so the interface can be modelle=
d as a
> > > > generic "performance domain" too. The common way to describe this, =
is to
> > > > use the "power-domain" bindings, so let's use that.
> > >
> > > What's wrong with the performance-domain binding?
> >
> > In my opinion I think the performance-domain binding is superfluous.
> > We already have plenty of power-domains that do performance scaling
> > too - and they stick with the power-domain binding, as it's
> > sufficient.
>
> IMO, power-domains should be for power islands which can be power
> gated. I know they are abused though. Of course, when things are
> hidden in firmware, you don't really know. A power-domain could be
> just a clock or a clock could be multiple physical clocks.

I would also like to point out that it's perfectly possible that a
power-domain can be a combination of a "power-island" and a
performance-domain. In fact we have those cases already (Qcom, Tegra).

>
> > That said, I would rather follow the defacto standard that has been
> > used for many years in the kernel. Do you have a preference that we
> > should stick to?
>
> If power-domains are sufficient, then why do we have
> performance-domains? We need clear rules for when to use what.

Well, I think we invented the performance-domains bindings, especially
with CPUs in mind. So far, that's the only use-case too (Mediatek,
Apple). Even if I think the power-domains bindings would have worked
fine for these cases too, maybe we should limit the
performance-domains binding to be used for CPUs?

Anyway, for the more generic use-case, I think the power-domains DT
binding is better to stick with (it's what we have used for many years
by now), as it provides us with the flexibility of hooking up an
opp-table to the power-domain, allowing us to make the domain
"performance-capable" too.

Kind regards
Uffe