[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFqe7UxSrQxuvGw7UWFQhvX0NZ83rvLrAEMZFpA4n0GcNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:04:04 +0100
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Cc: Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>,
Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] mmc: Add dynamic frequency scaling
On 15 January 2015 at 10:20, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<k.kozlowski@...sung.com> wrote:
> On czw, 2015-01-15 at 09:20 +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> + Mike, Stephen (Clock maintainers)
>>
>> On 12 January 2015 at 10:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>> <k.kozlowski@...sung.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >
>> > I would like to hear some comments about idea of scaling MMC clock
>> > frequency. The basic idea is to lower the clock when device is
>> > completely idle or not busy enough.
>>
>> We already have host drivers that implements runtime PM support.
>> Typically that would mean the clock will be gated once the device
>> becomes runtime PM suspended.
>>
>> Why should we decrease the frequency of an already gated clock?
>
> In case of idle state you're right that clkgate would be better. But
> what about finding a compromise between high performance (high
> frequency) and energy saving for different loads on MMC?
I guess a compromise could be beneficial for some SOC and use cases.
At least I remember, ST-Ericsson's UX500 SOC had such an out of tree
hack to track MMC load.
>
> The frequency scaling could help in that case. Anyway I should prepare
> some more benchmarks for such conditions.
Seems reasonable and please do!
Kind regards
Uffe
--
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