On 25.05.2018 11:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> On 24.05.2018 11:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 24.05.2018
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 24.05.2018 11:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
On 24.05.2018 07:30, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23-05-18, 19:00
On 25.05.2018 09:32, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 03:49:22PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 24.05.2018 13:04, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:00:20PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
PLL_C is running at 600MHz which is significantly higher than
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 11:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> On 24.05.2018 07:30, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 23-05-18, 19:00, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> PLL_C is running at 600MHz which is
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 03:49:22PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 13:04, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:00:20PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> PLL_C is running at 600MHz which is significantly higher than the 216MHz
> >> of the PLL_P and it is known that
On 24.05.2018 13:04, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:00:20PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> PLL_C is running at 600MHz which is significantly higher than the 216MHz
>> of the PLL_P and it is known that PLL_C is always-ON because AHB BUS is
>> running on that PLL. Let's use
On 24.05.2018 11:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 24.05.2018 07:30, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 23-05-18, 19:00, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
PLL_C is running at 600MHz which is significantly higher than the 216MHz
of the PLL_P and it
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:00:20PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> PLL_C is running at 600MHz which is significantly higher than the 216MHz
> of the PLL_P and it is known that PLL_C is always-ON because AHB BUS is
> running on that PLL. Let's use PLL_C as intermediate clock source, making
> CPU sna
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 07:30, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 23-05-18, 19:00, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> PLL_C is running at 600MHz which is significantly higher than the 216MHz
>>> of the PLL_P and it is known that PLL_C is always-ON because AHB BUS is
On 24.05.2018 07:30, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23-05-18, 19:00, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> PLL_C is running at 600MHz which is significantly higher than the 216MHz
>> of the PLL_P and it is known that PLL_C is always-ON because AHB BUS is
>> running on that PLL. Let's use PLL_C as intermediate clock
On 23-05-18, 19:00, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> PLL_C is running at 600MHz which is significantly higher than the 216MHz
> of the PLL_P and it is known that PLL_C is always-ON because AHB BUS is
> running on that PLL. Let's use PLL_C as intermediate clock source, making
> CPU snappier a tad during of
PLL_C is running at 600MHz which is significantly higher than the 216MHz
of the PLL_P and it is known that PLL_C is always-ON because AHB BUS is
running on that PLL. Let's use PLL_C as intermediate clock source, making
CPU snappier a tad during of the frequency transition.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Os
12 matches
Mail list logo