Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: cpufreq: Introduce QCOM CPUFREQ FW bindings

[Taniya Das <tdas@codeaurora.org>]

Hello Rob, Viresh,

Thank you for the comments. If I understand correctly, the device tree 
nodes should look something like the below.

Though I am not sure if any vendor name could be associated in the cpu 
nodes.

Please suggest if my understanding is wrong.

cpu@0 {
	qcom,freq-domain = <&freq_domain_table0>;
	…
};

same follows for cpu 1/2/3

cpu@400 {
	qcom,freq-domain = <&freq_domain_table1>;
	…
};
same follows for cpu 5/6/7

freq_domain_table0 : freq_table {
	reg = < >, < >, < > ;
	reg-names = "perf_base", "lut_base", "en_base";
};

freq_domain_table1 : freq_table {
	reg = < >, < >, < > ;
	reg-names = "perf_base", "lut_base", "en_base";
};



On 5/23/2018 7:48 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 22-05-18, 14:31, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 11:04:50PM +0530, Taniya Das wrote:
>>>> +           freq-domain-0 {
>>>> +                   compatible = "cpufreq";
>>>> +                   reg = <0x17d43920 0x4>,
>>>> +                        <0x17d43110 0x500>,
>>>> +                        <0x17d41000 0x4>;
>>>> +                   reg-names = "perf_base", "lut_base", "en_base";
>>>> +                   qcom,cpulist = <&CPU0 &CPU1 &CPU2 &CPU3>;
>>
>> I was thinking, can't we add platform specific properties in the CPU
>> nodes ? If yes, then we can point the phandle of fw node from the CPUs
>> and this awkward list can go away.
> 
> Yes, that's fine. That would be more like OPP binding in that the CPU
> points to the OPP table rather than the OPP pointing to the CPUs.
> 
> With that, you can get rid of the child nodes completely. Just make
> the parent reg property N sets of 3 addresses for N domains.
> 
> Rob
> 

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.

--