On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 07:05:46PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 21/11/2017 19:00, Javi Merino wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:57:06AM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> As I said before, the minimal you guys (ARM and Linaro) can do is to at > >> least upstream the Juno code! as a reference. Come on guys? what is > >> preventing you to upstream Juno model? > > > > As Ionela pointed out earlier in the thread, the cpufreq driver for Juno > > was not acceptable for mainline because it used platform specific code. > > When it was converted to cpufreq-dt, the static power was left behind > > because it can't be represented in device tree. This is because there > > isn't a function that works for every SoC, different process nodes > > (among other things) will need different functions. So it can't be just > > a bunch of coefficients in DT, we need a function. Hence the callback. > > The DT could contain the coef and a compatible string for a specific > polynomial computation callback. I imagine we should not have a lot of > different equations, no ? >
Yeah, that would be another way of doing it. If there is no equation that correlates all processes, then we need a vendor specific entry, or a compatible string, as Daniel said. > > > -- > <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs > > Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | > <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | > <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog >
