Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] cpufreq: tegra: Re-model Tegra cpufreq driver

[Viresh Kumar]

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 ?

> 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.

--
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/