- Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] cpufreq: add clk-reg cpufreq driver
- From: Richard Zhao <richard.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:44:52 +0800
- Cc: linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, arnd@xxxxxxxx, mark.langsdorf@xxxxxxxxxxx, linaro-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx, catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx, devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, patches@xxxxxxxxxx, bryanh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cpufreq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx, rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx, eric.miao@xxxxxxxxxx, rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxxx, kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, davej@xxxxxxxxxx, davidb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <20111226111030.GC8722@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
- References: <1324537753-30590-1-git-send-email-richard.zhao@linaro.org> <1324537753-30590-5-git-send-email-richard.zhao@linaro.org> <20111223131851.GB13175@sirena.org.uk> <20111224085539.GA1892@richard-laptop> <20111224122411.GA13778@sirena.org.uk> <20111224132831.GB1803@richard-laptop> <20111224134227.GA20908@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20111224155227.GC1803@richard-laptop> <20111226111030.GC8722@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 11:10:30AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 11:52:29PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 01:42:29PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 09:28:33PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
>
> > > > If you think regulator thansition latency is board specific, then the board
> > > > dts can overrite it.
>
> > > We should just query this information from the regulator subsystem
> > > (there's hooks but currently nothing implements them). The regulators
> > > can define their own bindings if they need to read it from device tree,
> > > most of them should be able to do this as a function of knowing about
> > > the device. None of this is specific to cpufreq so cpufreq shouldn't
> > > have to define its own support for this.
>
> > I'd like to query the latency by call clk and regulator APIs. but as you said
> > both of them have not implemented it yet. I think, for now, we can use the
>
> The *call* is there in the regulator subsystem, it's just that none of
> the drivers back it up with an actual implementation yet. Which turns
> out to be a good thing as cpufreq can't currently understand variable
> latencies and the governors don't deal well with non-trivial latencies
> anyway.
but clk API don't have such calls. and many SoCs only adjust clk frequencies, using
one single voltage.
>
> > property to get the total latency. Once I can get it at runtime, I'll remove
> > it. So the definition of trans-latency is just the same as cpufreq transition_latency,
> > people get less confused. What do you think?
>
> The problem with device tree is that once you've defined a binding
> you're stuck with it, it's very hard to change - witness all the magic
> number based stuff with the interrupt bindings for example
So what's your suggestion? We can not set transition_latency to set random number.
Thanks
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Linux USB Devel]
[Video for Linux]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Photo]
[Yosemite News]
[Yosemite Photos]
[Free Online Dating]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux SCSI]
[XFree86]