[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250605105151.5s6eblr472mbhunt@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 16:21:51 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Cc: webgeek1234@...il.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] cpufreq: tegra124: Remove use of disable_cpufreq
On 05-06-25, 11:34, Jon Hunter wrote:
> I think that would be fine. Given that the tegra124-cpufreq driver is the
> parent, if it fails to resume, then I assume that cpufreq-dt driver would
> not resume either?
There is no resume interface in the cpufreq-dt driver, it is the cpufreq core
which resumes to doing DVFS and I think it will try to do DVFS even if tegra's
driver failed.
> Has anyone tested this?
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists