From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Zhao Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] cpufreq: add clk-reg cpufreq driver Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:51:10 +0800 Message-ID: <20111227015109.GJ15863@b20223-02.ap.freescale.net> References: <1324537753-30590-5-git-send-email-richard.zhao@linaro.org> <20111223131851.GB13175@sirena.org.uk> <20111224085539.GA1892@richard-laptop> <20111224122411.GA13778@sirena.org.uk> <20111224132831.GB1803@richard-laptop> <20111224134227.GA20908@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20111224155227.GC1803@richard-laptop> <20111226111030.GC8722@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20111226134449.GA4259@richard-laptop> <20111226142234.GH8722@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111226142234.GH8722@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Richard Zhao , davej@redhat.com, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, arnd@arndb.de, mark.langsdorf@calxeda.com, patches@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, bryanh@codeaurora.org, eric.miao@linaro.org, kernel@pengutronix.de, jamie@jamieiles.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, davidb@codeaurora.org, shawn.guo@linaro.org, rob.herring@calxeda.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 02:22:34PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 09:44:52PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 11:10:30AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > Fix your mailer to word wrap properly please. If you mean last mail I sent, I didn't see anything wrong. I use mutt. > > > > The *call* is there in the regulator subsystem, it's just that none of > > > the drivers back it up with an actual implementation yet. Which turns > > > out to be a good thing as cpufreq can't currently understand variable > > > latencies and the governors don't deal well with non-trivial latencies > > > anyway. > > > but clk API don't have such calls. and many SoCs only adjust clk > > frequencies, using one single voltage. > > I've not suggested doing this in the clock API, only for the regulator. > For the clocks it's less clear that it's useful as you don't have the > bulk operations and it's much rarer to need them. > > > > The problem with device tree is that once you've defined a binding > > > you're stuck with it, it's very hard to change - witness all the magic > > > number based stuff with the interrupt bindings for example > > > So what's your suggestion? We can not set transition_latency to set > > random number. > > As I've repeatedly said I think you should define it to be the latency > for the SoC only, not for the regulators. Sometimes, regulators are in SoC too. To avoid confusion, I'll use below: clk-trans-latency = <61036>; Thanks Richard > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >