[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <l6vdnit4sd5rx3k236dwrmywudkmydxfjprn2c5i7fsfmlqfnu@tabbezrje36b>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 16:35:01 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: webgeek1234@...il.com, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xilin Wu <wuxilin123@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8550: Update EAS properties
On 29-01-26, 12:00, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 1/28/26 8:11 PM, Aaron Kling via B4 Relay wrote:
> > It should be noted that the A715 cores seem less efficient than the
> > A710 cores. Therefore, an average value has been assigned to them,
> > considering that the A715 and A710 cores share a single cpufreq
> > domain.
>
> Regarding the CPUFreq domain shared across cores with different power
> characteristics, I think we shouldn't be lying to the OS, rather Linux
> should be able to deal with it, somehow.
cpufreq-domain == cpufreq-policy here I guess. All CPUs that change
their DVFS state together should be part of one policy. Not sure if
there is something else you were pointing at.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists