From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 11:13:21 +0100 Subject: Colibri PXA320 Power management question In-Reply-To: <4C7FC606.20904@compulab.co.il> References: <20100902142203.GA8381@sirena.org.uk> <4C7FB7B5.2010301@compulab.co.il> <20100902152705.GC5809@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <4C7FC606.20904@compulab.co.il> Message-ID: <20100906101320.GD10367@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 06:43:02PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > Mark Brown wrote: > >Yes, exactly - what I'm saying is that Linux is set up to use cpufreq > >rather than rely on the built in stuff. > There's no contradiction here. The PXA3XX cpufreq implementation > could trigger automatic voltage scaling. That'd be slightly entertaining, though, since IIRC the hardware implementation isn't really set up for being constrained - it doesn't expect to be cooperating with software governors.