[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220830054042.akj7pf366inelvpo@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 11:10:42 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Move clocks to CPU node
On 29-08-22, 22:24, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> Conceptually, it sounds like a good idea to express the clock feeding
> the CPU clusters, which is controlled by the OSM/EPSS. But do you
> expect the OPP framework to actually do something with the clock, or
> just to ensure that the relationship is properly described?
No, the OPP core will never try to set the clock rate in your case,
though it will do clk_get().
> FWIW, the possible discrepancy between the requested frequency and the
> actual frequency comes from the fact that OSM/EPSS throttles the cluster
> frequency based on a number of different factors (thermal, voltages
> ...).
> This is reported back to the kernel using the thermal pressure
> interface. It would be quite interesting to see some investigation in
> how efficient the kernel is at making use of this feedback.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists