[PATCH v5 5/6] rockchip/soc/drivers: Add DTPM description for rk3399
Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezcano at linaro.org
Wed Jan 5 03:25:56 PST 2022
On 31/12/2021 14:57, Ulf Hansson wrote:
[ ... ]
>> +static struct dtpm_node __initdata rk3399_hierarchy[] = {
>> + [0]{ .name = "rk3399" },
>> + [1]{ .name = "package",
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[0] },
>> + [2]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu at 0",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [3]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu at 1",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [4]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu at 2",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [5]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu at 3",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [6]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu at 100",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [7]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu at 101",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [8]{ .name = "rockchip,rk3399-mali",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [9]{ },
>> +};
>
> I will not object to this, as in the end this seems like what we need
> to do, unless we can describe things through generic DT bindings for
> DTPM. Right?
Yes, as asked by Rob, we should try to describe in the kernel first.
> Although, if the above is correct, I need to stress that I am kind of
> worried that this doesn't really scale. We would need to copy lots of
> information from the DTS files into platform specific c-files, to be
> able to describe the DTPM hierarchy.
TBH I don't think it is a lot and it is a __initdata. At least we should
begin with something and see later how to consolidate if it is needed, no?
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list