From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 10:50:33 +0530
Message-ID: <20150512052033.GC32300@linux>
References: <20150505105714.GA22845@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAKohpo=09ZhXxh5Cm7Ww9Gy-AYRp9=j82tup6atVN+aOF8twdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150505171252.GI22845@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAKohpo=kJs076afzERPMqjELgwpN6nR2yoyEjW6XY7YSEbRuCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150507055231.GB32399@codeaurora.org>
 <20150507110233.GR15510@sirena.org.uk>
 <20150507211855.GA2455@codeaurora.org>
 <20150507221842.GW22845@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAKohpomU8wm0T=A7EkosdOjXbP8q2Cb726Hsjh08KTKYjoz3-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <555000B6.2010107@ti.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <555000B6.2010107@ti.com>
Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>, Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Rob Herring <rob.herring@linaro.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@linaro.org>, Mike Turquette <mike.turquette@linaro.org>, Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>, "olof@lixom.net" <olof@lixom.net>, Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@arm.com>, "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, Viswanath Puttagunta <viswanath.puttagunta@linaro.org>, Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com>, Abhilash Kesavan <kesavan.abhilash@gmail.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>, santosh
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.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 ?