[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150803092839.GB2564@lukather>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:28:39 +0200
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, public_timo.s@...entcreek.de,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"Mailing List, Arm" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] ARM: dts: sunxi: Raise minimum CPU voltage
for sun7i-a20 to a level all boards can supply
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 02:22:13PM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote:
> >> Is the code that uses this smart enough to sensibly switch between two
> >> operating points with the same frequency and different voltages? If
> >> so, maybe just add a 144MHz @ 1.0v operating point?
> >
> > You could try. Though I really don't see much to gain here.
>
> From what I recall, lower frequency = less power usage, though my
> experience is from x86 laptops, not ARM SoCs and I'm sure I'm missing
> a lot of details. This is the sort of thing that requires thorough
> testing on a dev board.
Not on *a* dev board. On virtually all the A20 SoCs ever produced. If
you have a setting that works better for *your* SoC, fine, patch your
DT, but that's not going to be a default if it's outside of the SoC
operating range.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists