Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] cpufreq: tegra: Re-model Tegra cpufreq driver
From: bilhuang
Date: Thu Dec 19 2013 - 00:57:18 EST
On 12/19/2013 01:29 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 19 December 2013 10:56, bilhuang <bilhuang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm not sure virtual regulator for CPU is a good idea, in addition to that,
we don't have a single SoC OPP table, we need several which are speedo-id
and process-id dependant, but generic cpufreq-cpu0 is assuming there is only
one statically
Can't that be handled via DT ?
I don't think it can be handled via DT unless we separate DTB according
to different CPU speedo/process-id but that is not a good idea.
for some SoC the frequency table is not fixed, they are
created at runtime combining our fast and slow CPU frequency table and dvfs
table. So I'm really not sure is it worth adding so many tweaks in order to
use the generic cpufreq-cpu0 driver.
Hmm, maybe I got confused because I don't have a clear picture in my mind.
It might be better to go ahead with your implementation for now and after
everything is set, we can choose to use cpufreq-cpu0 if it is worth it.
This makes more sense to me, thanks.
--
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/