[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <757286c60ea16cf5c68517b3d098047e@manjaro.org>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 12:56:37 +0200
From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
To: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...rry.de>
Cc: Alexey Charkov <alchark@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Chen-Yu
Tsai <wens@...nel.org>, Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kever Yang
<kever.yang@...k-chips.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add OPP data for CPU cores
on RK3588
On 2024-05-08 12:50, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> I'm surprised that we removed the lowest frequencies at the same
> voltage, are they not even allowing us to save a teeny tiny bit of
> power consumption? (I'm asking because I'm pretty sure we'll
> eventually get customers complaining the CPU freq doesn't go in super
> low frequency "so this must be a way to consume less power in idle!").
Same-voltage, different-frequency OPPs are seen as inefficient, although
I don't share the same opinion. While the jury is still out, perhaps we
can omit them, and possibly add them later.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists