On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 22:06, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilim...@ti.com> wrote: > On 5/26/2011 11:40 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> >> So here's a dumb question, being rather ignorant of CPUfreq on SMP. >> >> Should we be running a CPUfreq instance on both CPUs when they cannot be >> scaled independently? >> >> What is being scaled here is actually the cluster (the MPU SS via >> dpll_mpu_ck), not an individual CPU. So to me, it only makes sense to >> have a an instance of the driver per scalable device, which in this case >> is a single MPU SS. >> > We are running only one instance and for the exact same reason as above. > You are completely right and that's the whole intention of those > CPUMASK two lines in the initialization code. > > >> What am I missing? >> > Not at all.
So not have cpufreq driver registered at all for CPU1? Life would be a lot simpler in omap2-cpufreq.c as a result. but that said, two views: a) future silicon somewhere ahead might need the current infrastructure to scale into different tables.. b) as far as userspace sees it - cpu0 and cpu1 exists, cool, *but* cpu1 is not scalable(no /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq.. but .../cpu1/online is present). Keep in mind that userspace is usually written chip independent. IMHO registering drivers for both devices do make sense they reflect what the reality of the system is. 2 cpus scaling together - why do we want to OMAP "specific" stuff here? Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
