[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e6ee8116-7f73-fa7a-3df4-b17ccd8dcb0e@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 15:49:22 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] cpufreq: tegra20: Use PLL_C as intermediate clock
source
On 24.05.2018 13:04, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:00:20PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> PLL_C is running at 600MHz which is significantly higher than the 216MHz
>> of the PLL_P and it is known that PLL_C is always-ON because AHB BUS is
>> running on that PLL. Let's use PLL_C as intermediate clock source, making
>> CPU snappier a tad during of the frequency transition.
>>
>
> pll_c isn't necessarily 600Mhz when used as a source for the second display
> head.
Hmm, indeed.
Even if PLL_C rate will be adjusted, it will be higher than the PLL_P.. won't
it? That's likely to be good enough.
Do you know if any of the available CCLK parents has a glitch-less rate
switching? I.e. CPU won't hang on the rate switch.
There is other possible 600MHz source, the PLL_M. Can we use it? This one also
may become dynamic if we'll consider implementing the memory scaling, but the
memory frequency probably will fit the transition role pretty well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists