[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230224021713.stpcykx2tjkjwyti@vireshk-i7>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 07:47:13 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Jun Nie <jun.nie@...aro.org>
Cc: cw00.choi@...sung.com, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OPP: Simplify set_required_opp handling
On 23-02-23, 17:56, Jun Nie wrote:
> It looks promising. The function get_target_freq_with_cpufreq() can be wrapped
> to act as set_required_opps() callback.
> But my case is a bit complicated. CPU opp depends on both genpd opp and
> devfreq opp.
I was wondering if we will have such a case soon enough or not :)
> So the genpd_virt_devs array need
> to be modified or add another array for devfreq case. While genpd_virt_devs is
> bounded with genpd directly and coupled with "power-domains" list in
> device tree.
> Current required-opp nodes are designed to be aligned with the list. I
> am considering
> what's the best way for back compatibility.
Please look at the top commit here:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vireshk/pm.git opp/propagate
Will this be enough for your use case ? I will post everything again once we are
settled on a solution.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists