[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a3b9ff0f-fff9-9439-5ec9-95a4de9bdfaa@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 11:56:09 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Mateusz Majewski <m.majewski2@...sung.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] thermal: exynos: remove fine-grained clk management
On 29/08/2023 11:18, Mateusz Majewski wrote:
> This clock only controls the register operations. The gain in power
> efficiency is therefore quite dubious, while there is price of added
> complexity that is important to get right (as a register operation might
> outright hang the CPU if the clock is not enabled).
So once it is done right, this stops being argument. The benefit is to
keep this clock disabled most of the time, which now we lost.
I don't find this patch correct approach.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists