| 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: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:59:21 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> To: bilhuang <bilhuang@...dia.com> 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 19 December 2013 10:56, bilhuang <bilhuang@...dia.com> wrote: > I'm not sure virtual regulator for CPU is a good idea, in addition to that, > we don't have a single SoC OPP table, we need several which are speedo-id > and process-id dependant, but generic cpufreq-cpu0 is assuming there is only > one statically Can't that be handled via DT ? > for some SoC the frequency table is not fixed, they are > created at runtime combining our fast and slow CPU frequency table and dvfs > table. So I'm really not sure is it worth adding so many tweaks in order to > use the generic cpufreq-cpu0 driver. Hmm, maybe I got confused because I don't have a clear picture in my mind. It might be better to go ahead with your implementation for now and after everything is set, we can choose to use cpufreq-cpu0 if it is worth it. -- viresh -- 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