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. > 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 _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
