From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: cpufreq(-dt) with two clocks but one regulator Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:25:59 -0700 Message-ID: <20170919152559.GA16005@ubuntu> References: <1515316.mHJbnBRRvK@phil> <2224473.GjtbWfbYHk@phil> <2997079.BKPG7M6LVv@diego> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f171.google.com ([209.85.192.171]:53322 "EHLO mail-pf0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750948AbdISP0H (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:26:07 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f171.google.com with SMTP id x78so146518pff.10 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2997079.BKPG7M6LVv@diego> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Heiko =?iso-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= Cc: Doug Anderson , "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." , Klaus Goger , Vincent Guittot , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" On 19-09-17, 11:19, Heiko Stübner wrote: > Am Montag, 18. September 2017, 16:37:56 CEST schrieb Doug Anderson: > > (Untested) Can't you change the opp table and use the fancier > > operating point descriptions that give ? And that's exactly what I was going to suggest :) > funny, that I never noticed that opps are also specified for > (target, min, max) values. > > Thanks for pointing me to the right direction and this seems to > actually work. Although I noticed that obviously the max value > needs to always be the global maximum (1125000 here) for both > opp tables, to make the regulator framework happy. Great. -- viresh