[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=fJTLrN6myq5b9FTSro1m9oN3ep-aMu-3iv0J-S6TpdQ@mail.gmail.com>
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