[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9956925.Qsz2bH3rDg@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 13:22:32 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] clk: Introduce 'clk_round_rate_nearest()'
On Monday, May 26, 2014 11:59:09 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23 May 2014 21:44, Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com> wrote:
> > Viresh: Could you imagine something similar for cpufreq? You suggested
> > migrating to Hz resolution. I guess that would ideally mean to follow
> > the CCF to a 64-bit type for frequencies and increasing the resolution.
> > I have a messy patch migrating cpufreq and OPP to Hz and unsigned long
> > that works on Zynq. But cpufreq has so many users that it would become
> > quite an undertaking.
> > And we'd need some new/amended OPP DT binding.
>
> If we are going to migrate to Hz from KHz, I think we must consider the
> 64 bit stuff right now, otherwise it will bite us later.
>
> @Rafael: What do you think?
I agree as far as the 64-bit thing goes, but is switching to Hz really
necessary?
Rafael
--
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