From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bilhuang Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] cpufreq: tegra: Re-model Tegra cpufreq driver Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:26:47 +0800 Message-ID: <52B28397.5010808@nvidia.com> References: <1386229462-3474-1-git-send-email-bilhuang@nvidia.com> <1386229462-3474-3-git-send-email-bilhuang@nvidia.com> <52B02D04.4050905@nvidia.com> <52B187F5.7020105@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Stephen Warren , "thierry.reding@gmail.com" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 12/18/2013 10:39 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 18 December 2013 17:03, bilhuang wrote: >> cpufreq-cpu0 driver will call regulator_set_voltage_tol() directly according >> to the pre-defined OPP freq/volt pairs, the regulator drivers could be >> shared by other SoC so is not suitable to handle this, or do I >> misunderstand? > > In case regulator's driver is shared, then you can probably add another > virtual regulator for CPU which would have the special code you want. > I'm not sure virtual regulator for CPU is a good idea, in addition to that, we don't have a single SoC OPP table, we need several which are speedo-id and process-id dependant, but generic cpufreq-cpu0 is assuming there is only one statically, for some SoC the frequency table is not fixed, they are created at runtime combining our fast and slow CPU frequency table and dvfs table. So I'm really not sure is it worth adding so many tweaks in order to use the generic cpufreq-cpu0 driver.