| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 19:33:09 +0800 From: bilhuang <bilhuang@...dia.com> To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>, "thierry.reding@...il.com" <thierry.reding@...il.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] cpufreq: tegra: Re-model Tegra cpufreq driver On 12/18/2013 07:11 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 17 December 2013 16:22, bilhuang <bilhuang@...dia.com> wrote: >> Tegra20 DVFS is a little bit complicated due to the fact that we can't scale >> VDD_CPU directly, there are constraints or relationship to other power rails >> so I don't think it is a good idea to use generic cpufreq-cpu0 driver if >> we're going to support voltage scaling. > > But why can't we handle that in a CPU specific regulator code? > cpufreq-cpu0 driver will call regulator_set_voltage_tol() directly according to the pre-defined OPP freq/volt pairs, the regulator drivers could be shared by other SoC so is not suitable to handle this, or do I misunderstand? -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists