[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1523367652.4981.9.camel@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:40:52 +0200
From: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
To: Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
robdclark@...il.com, s.hauer@...gutronix.de, shawnguo@...nel.org,
fabio.estevam@....com, nm@...com, xuwei5@...ilicon.com,
robh+dt@...nel.org, olof@...om.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 00/13] drivers: Boot Constraint core
Hi Georgi,
Am Freitag, den 30.03.2018, 18:24 +0300 schrieb Georgi Djakov:
[...]
> The interconnect core takes requests from consumer drivers for their
> bandwidth needs and configures the hardware to keep the lowest possible
> power profile. I think that the boot constraint patches would be useful
> to make a board run at maximum performance during boot, until all
> consumer drivers are probed and all bandwidth requests are taken into
> account.
Can you please describe how this bootconstraints core integration is
simpler than a "run things at max performance until late kernel init",
which could be triggered by a simple initcall similar to what is done
for clocks and regulators?
To me the bootcontraints stuff looks like a fairly complex solution and
your use-case doesn't even sound like you strictly want to keep a
bootloader configuration, but rather run things at max performance
until you are reasonably sure that you got all the necessary bandwidth
requests.
Regards,
Lucas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists