[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4374e31115bbcbd783003cd5c648163a1f4ff0d1.camel@mediatek.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 19:30:20 +0800
From: Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
<viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
<krzk+dt@...nel.org>
CC: <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, <jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com>,
<roger.lu@...iatek.com>, <hsinyi@...gle.com>,
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
<Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 11/15] cpufreq: mediatek: Update logic of
voltage_tracking()
On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 14:08 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com> writes:
>
> > From: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com>
> >
> > - Remove VOLT_TOL because CCI may share the same sram and vproc
> > regulators with CPU. Therefore, set the max voltage in
> > regulator_set_voltage() to the proc{sram}_max_volt.
>
> This could you a bit more detailed explanation. Why does VOLT_TOL
> get
> in the way when regulators are shared between CPU & CCI?
Hello Kevin,
Here we use 'sram_min_volt' and 'sram_max_volt' to determine the
voltage boundary of sram regulator.
And use (sram_min_volt - min_volt_shift) and 'proc_max_volt' to
determine the voltage boundary of vproc regulator.
We use them as platform data to replace VOLT_TOL (voltage tolerance)
when determing the voltage boundary and invoking regulator_set_voltage.
I will add this to commit message in next version.
>
> > - Move comparison of new and old voltages to
> > mtk_cpufreq_voltage_tracking().
>
> Why? And how is this related to the above change? Seems to me that
> it
> belongs in a separate patch.
>
> Kevin
I think there are some mistake for this.
I will remove this commit message in next version.
BRs,
Rex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists