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;
Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2023 12:55:35 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.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, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/11] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Extend
 bindings for protocol@13
Message-ID: <20230721115535.mx46dg56pxjnzbuv@bogus>
References: <20230713141738.23970-1-ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
 <20230713141738.23970-9-ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
 <20230719151716.qhobfnclrjf4yqkg@bogus>
 <CAPDyKFpjMWOAbV+b2DcxDWqvRDQCbSC6Ti+KGGPWJoC4Ghp7=w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFpjMWOAbV+b2DcxDWqvRDQCbSC6Ti+KGGPWJoC4Ghp7=w@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 01:42:43PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 17:17, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 04:17:35PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > The protocol@13 node is describing the performance scaling option for the
> > > ARM SCMI interface, as a clock provider. This is unnecessary limiting, as
> > > performance scaling is in many cases not limited to switching a clock's
> > > frequency.
> > >
> > > Therefore, let's extend the binding so the interface can be modelled as a
> > > generic performance domaintoo. The common way to describe this, is to use
> > > the "power-domain" DT bindings, so let's use that.
> > >
> >
> > One thing I forgot to ask earlier is how we can manage different domain IDs
> > for perf and power domains which is the case with current SCMI platforms as
> > the spec never mandated or can ever mandate the perf and power domains IDs
> > to match. They need not be same anyways.
> 
> Based upon what you describe above, I have modelled the perf-domain
> and the power-domain as two separate power-domain providers.
> 
> A consumer device being hooked up to both domains, would specify the
> domain IDs in the second power-domain-cell, along the lines of the
> below. Then we would use power-domain-names to specify what each
> power-domain represents.
> 
> power-domains = <&scmi_pd 2>, <&scmi_dvfs 4>;
> power-domain-names = "power", "perf";
>
> I hope this makes it clearer!?

Yes it make is clear definitely, but it does change the definition of the
generic binding of the "power-domains" property now. I am interesting in
the feedback from the binding maintainers with respect to that. Or is it
already present ? IIUC, the ones supported already are generally both
power and performance providers. May be it doesn't matter much, just
wanted to explicit ask and confirm those details.

--
Regards,
Sudeep