linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] cpufreq: mediatek: add Mediatek cpufreq driver

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKohponaQYYgYFAbpY3KZjt4+QhjBsqQtEpG5QpdMH0p__YUEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Mar 2015 17:16:42 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Chen Fan <fan.chen@...iatek.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Howard Chen <ibanezchen@...il.com>,
	"Joe.C" <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@...iatek.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] cpufreq: mediatek: add Mediatek cpufreq driver

On 11 March 2015 at 17:12, Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> Instead of creating virtual regulators I would be strongly in favor of
> reviving the voltage-domain work. That would allow us to push all those
> voltage dependencies we have seen on various SoCs into the domain
> handling code and don't care about it in the drivers.
>
> In that case cpufreq-dt wouldn't control a regulator directly, but
> request a specific voltage from the domain the CPUs are located in and
> those in turn would control the regulators supplying them.

I agree that it would be the right approach but who is going to do that stuff ?

I think until the time we revive the voltage-domain stuff we need to support
mediatek's driver. And probably a virtual regulator is the best approach
unless someone else comes up with another idea.
--
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/