On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 19:32, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2018-12-11 20:13:13)
> >
> > >>> Just to make sure there are no conflicting hierarchical constraints
> > >>> between idle management and performance state management!?
> > >>>
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what idle states me
Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2018-12-11 20:13:13)
>
> >>> Just to make sure there are no conflicting hierarchical constraints
> >>> between idle management and performance state management!?
> >>>
> >
> > I'm not sure what idle states mean to the CX and MX domains. Would it be
> > some sort of idle st
[]...
This is used to enforce a requirement that exists for various
hardware blocks on SDM845 that MX performance state >= CX performance
state for a given operating frequency.
I assume that also means the MX power domain must not be power off as
long as the CX power domain is powered on?
Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2018-12-11 02:33:23)
>
>
> On 12/11/2018 3:52 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 10:50, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> >>
> >> Specify the active + sleep and active-only MX power domains as
> >> the parents of the corresponding CX power domains. This will ensure t
On 12/11/2018 3:52 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 10:50, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
Specify the active + sleep and active-only MX power domains as
the parents of the corresponding CX power domains. This will ensure that
performance state requests on CX automatically generate equiv
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 10:50, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>
> Specify the active + sleep and active-only MX power domains as
> the parents of the corresponding CX power domains. This will ensure that
> performance state requests on CX automatically generate equivalent requests
> on MX power domains.
>
>
6 matches
Mail list logo
