Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] cpufreq: tegra: Re-model Tegra cpufreq driver

bilhuang
2013-12-19T05:57:33Z

On 12/19/2013 01:29 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 19 December 2013 10:56, bilhuang <bilhuang@nvidia.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure virtual regulator for CPU is a good idea, in addition to that,
>> we don't have a single SoC OPP table, we need several which are speedo-id
>> and process-id dependant, but generic cpufreq-cpu0 is assuming there is only
>> one statically
>
> Can't that be handled via DT ?
I don't think it can be handled via DT unless we separate DTB according
to different CPU speedo/process-id but that is not a good idea.
>
>> for some SoC the frequency table is not fixed, they are
>> created at runtime combining our fast and slow CPU frequency table and dvfs
>> table. So I'm really not sure is it worth adding so many tweaks in order to
>> use the generic cpufreq-cpu0 driver.
>
> Hmm, maybe I got confused because I don't have a clear picture in my mind.
> It might be better to go ahead with your implementation for now and after
> everything is set, we can choose to use cpufreq-cpu0 if it is worth it.
>
This makes more sense to me, thanks.
> --
> viresh
>