From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here? Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:39:03 +0000 Message-ID: <20060817213903.GD6450@ucw.cz> References: <20060814200735.GC14099@kroah.com> <20060814224623.GH30814@redhat.com> <221e3d51950d20642b3655617527dc52@nomadgs.com> <1155638115.6736.135.camel@localhost> <20060815190439.GI7612@redhat.com> <1155733089.10017.17.camel@Dogbert.NOE.nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1155733089.10017.17.camel@Dogbert.NOE.nokia.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Igor Stoppa Cc: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, "Kucheria Amit (Nokia-M/Tampere)" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > If there are dependancies inherently linking core1 and core2, cpufreq > > should already be programming both parts. For example, the SA1100 > > driver programs both CPU and SDRAM controller. If there isn't any > > dependancy > > between them, I don't see the attraction of creating an artificial one > > in the way suggested for no real purpose. > > = > > Things like voltage and frequency are closely tied together, so > > offering > > any means of controlling them independantly makes no sense afaics. > Yet a certain subsystem (for example an onboard camera, in a phone) > might require a higher voltage when it's active, effectively loosening > the tight coupling between freq and voltage that the porcessor is > enforcing. So... you expect userland to echo high > state before camera can be used? I'd rather have kernel automagically up the voltage when /dev/video0 is opened... Pavel -- = Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.