linux-kernel - Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] ARM: dts: sunxi: Raise minimum CPU voltage for sun7i-a20 to a level all boards can supply

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:36:32 +1000
From:	Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
To:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Timo Sigurdsson <public_timo.s@...entcreek.de>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Mailing List, Arm" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>,
	monnier@....umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] ARM: dts: sunxi: Raise minimum CPU voltage
 for sun7i-a20 to a level all boards can supply

Hi Maxime,

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:03:52AM +0200, Timo Sigurdsson wrote:
>> Hi again,
>>
>> Julian Calaby schrieb am 03.08.2015 06:22:
>> > My only real objection here is are there boards that can go down to
>> > 0.9v and if so, won't this change make them less power efficient in
>> > the almost-idle case? And are those power savings enough to justify
>> > not accepting this patch?
>>
>> It will probably make those boards less power efficient, yes. On the
>> other hand, boards that have their CPU regulator set to min. 1.0V might
>> also draw more power because the lowest frequency is not available,
>> even though the savings due to frequency are likely to be lower than
>> the savings due to voltage.
>
> Guys, isn't this whole discussion a bit moot? We're not doing any kind
> of power management but cpufreq, so maybe there's a lot more to do
> before we actually can have these kind of arguments?
>
> Plus this OPP has never been used anyway, so this patch is not going
> to increase the power consumption either.

Oh, I didn't know that. Therefore I withdraw my objections, patch away!

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@...il.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/