On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 01:48:52PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote:
> OPP currently has opp_enable and opp_disable functions. I don't
> understand why these are needed, they are only used at init time to
> determine available voltages, which could be handled by never passing
> unavailable voltages to th
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:50 PM, MyungJoo Ham
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Colin Cross wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:12 PM, MyungJoo Ham
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Colin Cross wrote:
> OP
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Colin Cross wrote:
> I understand the need for some sort of governor that can use device
> state to determine the necessary clock frequencies. Where I disagree
> is the connection to voltages. The governor should ONLY determine the
> frequencies desired, and the
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:50 PM, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Colin Cross wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:12 PM, MyungJoo Ham
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Colin Cross wrote:
OPP currently has opp_enable and opp_disable functions. I don't
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:12 PM, MyungJoo Ham
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Colin Cross wrote:
>>> OPP currently has opp_enable and opp_disable functions. I don't
>>> understand why these are needed, they are only used at in
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:12 PM, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Colin Cross wrote:
>> OPP currently has opp_enable and opp_disable functions. I don't
>> understand why these are needed, they are only used at init time to
>> determine available voltages, which could be ha
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:59 PM, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> What one instance of DVFS (devfreq) controls are clocks and
> regulators. (a device may have multiple regulators as well as multiple
> clocks)
> What one instance of DVFS (devfreq) monitors (device load and/or
> temperature) is a device that
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Forget OMAP implementation details for a while, sit back and look at
>> the big picture.
>
> Here's my proposal for DVFS:
> - DVFS is implemented in drivers/clk/dvfs.c, and is called
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Colin Cross wrote:
> (sorry, missent the earlier one)
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Menon, Nishanth wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:49, Colin Cross wrote:
>> +l-o
>>
>>> I'm a little confused about the design for this, and OPP as well. OPP
>>> match
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Forget OMAP implementation details for a while, sit back and look at
> the big picture.
Here's my proposal for DVFS:
- DVFS is implemented in drivers/clk/dvfs.c, and is called by the
common clock implementation to adjust the voltages, if
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Menon, Nishanth wrote:
> OPP table is just a storage and retrieval mechanism, it is upto SoC
> frameworks to choose the most adequate of solutions - e.g. OMAP has
> omap_device, hwmod and a clock framework for more intricate control to
> work in conjunction with cpuidle framew
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Menon, Nishanth wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:49, Colin Cross wrote:
> > I proposed in a different thread on LKML that DVFS be handled within
> > the generic clock implementation. Platforms would register a
> > regulator and a table of voltages for each struct clock tha
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Menon, Nishanth wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 13:29, Colin Cross wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Menon, Nishanth wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:49, Colin Cross wrote:
>>> +l-o
>>>
I'm a little confused about the design for this, and O
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 13:29, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Menon, Nishanth wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:49, Colin Cross wrote:
>> +l-o
>>
>>> I'm a little confused about the design for this, and OPP as well. OPP
>>> matches a struct device * and a frequency to
(sorry, missent the earlier one)
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Menon, Nishanth wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:49, Colin Cross wrote:
> +l-o
>
>> I'm a little confused about the design for this, and OPP as well. OPP
>> matches a struct device * and a frequency to a voltage, which is not
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Menon, Nishanth wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:49, Colin Cross wrote:
> +l-o
>
>> I'm a little confused about the design for this, and OPP as well. OPP
>> matches a struct device * and a frequency to a voltage, which is not a
>> generically useful pairing,
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:49, Colin Cross wrote:
+l-o
> I'm a little confused about the design for this, and OPP as well. OPP
> matches a struct device * and a frequency to a voltage, which is not a
> generically useful pairing, as far as I can tell. On Tegra, it is
> quite possible for a sing
17 matches
Mail list logo
