From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 10:50:33 +0530 Subject: [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings In-Reply-To: <555000B6.2010107@ti.com> References: <20150505105714.GA22845@sirena.org.uk> <20150505171252.GI22845@sirena.org.uk> <20150507055231.GB32399@codeaurora.org> <20150507110233.GR15510@sirena.org.uk> <20150507211855.GA2455@codeaurora.org> <20150507221842.GW22845@sirena.org.uk> <555000B6.2010107@ti.com> Message-ID: <20150512052033.GC32300@linux> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10-05-15, 20:07, Nishanth Menon wrote: > just one minor concern being in the SoC end of the world :). In most > times, the current consumption for a specific OPP varies depending on > the specific location in the process node the die is -> this is even > true among a single lot of wafers as well. some SoC vendors use hot, > nominal and cold terminology to indicate the characteristics of the > specific sample. > > it might help state which sample end of the spectrum we are talking > about here. reason being: if I put in values based on my board > measurement, the results may not be similar to what someone else's > sample be. Depending on technology, speed binning strategy used by the > vendor, temperature and few other characteristics, these numbers could > be widely divergent. I don't have any clue about this.. :( @Mark/stephen: Any inputs ?