On 12 March 2015 at 16:45, Pi-Cheng Chen wrote:
> The voltages of the two regulators need to be always under a limitation:
> 100mV < Vsram - Vproc < 200mV
> For now, I just calculate the OPPs of Vsram from OPPs of Vproc.
>
> Another thing I should mention, if the voltage difference of two adjacent
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11 March 2015 at 18:15, Mark Brown wrote:
>> Ugh, no - that's a hideous bodge which is only going to create trouble
>> later. Remember, DT is an ABI and should describe the hardware so if
>> we're doing bodges that are visible there to sh
On 11 March 2015 at 18:15, Mark Brown wrote:
> Ugh, no - that's a hideous bodge which is only going to create trouble
> later. Remember, DT is an ABI and should describe the hardware so if
> we're doing bodges that are visible there to shoehorn things onto our
> implementation that's bad. The co
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 04:33:49PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On mediatek platform, they need to configure two regulators in order to change
> DVFS state of the big cluster. The generic cpufreq-dt driver and earlier OPP
> bindings have support for a single regulator only and so what Pi-cheng tri
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 05:16:42PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> I think until the time we revive the voltage-domain stuff we need to support
> mediatek's driver. And probably a virtual regulator is the best approach
> unless someone else comes up with another idea.
Why not just write a custom cpu
On 11 March 2015 at 17:12, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Instead of creating virtual regulators I would be strongly in favor of
> reviving the voltage-domain work. That would allow us to push all those
> voltage dependencies we have seen on various SoCs into the domain
> handling code and don't care about
Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 16:33 +0530 schrieb Viresh Kumar:
> On 11 March 2015 at 16:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:20:43AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >
> > Please don't send upstream e-mail to my work account, I use this address
> > pretty consistently for upstream. Up
On 11 March 2015 at 16:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:20:43AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> Please don't send upstream e-mail to my work account, I use this address
> pretty consistently for upstream. Upstream mail to my work account
> frequently ends up unread.
Sorry about
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:20:43AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Please don't send upstream e-mail to my work account, I use this address
pretty consistently for upstream. Upstream mail to my work account
frequently ends up unread.
> On 6 March 2015 at 11:19, Pi-Cheng Chen wrote:
> > On 5 March 20
On 6 March 2015 at 11:19, Pi-Cheng Chen wrote:
> On 5 March 2015 at 17:55, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> About putting
> those stuff into regulator driver, I think you mean creating a
> "virtual regulator
> device" and put all the voltage controlling complex into the driver, right?
> Maybe it's a good i
On 10 March 2015 at 00:28, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 04:49:15PM +0800, pi-cheng.chen wrote:
>> +static int cpu_opp_table_get_freq_index(unsigned int freq)
>> +{
>> + struct cpu_opp_table *opp_tbl = dvfs_info->opp_tbl;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; op
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 04:49:15PM +0800, pi-cheng.chen wrote:
> +static int cpu_opp_table_get_freq_index(unsigned int freq)
> +{
> + struct cpu_opp_table *opp_tbl = dvfs_info->opp_tbl;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; opp_tbl[i].freq != 0; i++) {
> + if (opp_tbl[i].freq >= fr
+cc Sascha
On 5 March 2015 at 17:55, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 5 March 2015 at 12:57, Pi-Cheng Chen wrote:
>
>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:09, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> There are 2 clusters, but only the big cluster need to do voltage scaling in
>> the
>> notifier, since the voltage controlling is done
On 5 March 2015 at 12:57, Pi-Cheng Chen wrote:
> On 4 March 2015 at 19:09, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> There are 2 clusters, but only the big cluster need to do voltage scaling in
> the
> notifier, since the voltage controlling is done by cpufreq-dt driver
> in this version.
> Therefore only one dvfs
Hi Viresh,
Thanks for reviewing.
Please see my reply below:
On 4 March 2015 at 19:09, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Haven't reviewed it completely yet, but this is all I have done.
>
> On 4 March 2015 at 14:19, pi-cheng.chen wrote:
>
>> +static int mtk_cpufreq_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
>> +
Haven't reviewed it completely yet, but this is all I have done.
On 4 March 2015 at 14:19, pi-cheng.chen wrote:
> +static int mtk_cpufreq_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
> + unsigned long action, void *data)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs = data;
> +
In this patch, some SoC specific voltage scaling flow is implemented in the
cpufreq notifier of mtk-cpufreq driver.
Signed-off-by: pi-cheng.chen
---
drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm | 6 +
drivers/cpufreq/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/cpufreq/mtk-cpufreq.c | 346 +
17 matches
Mail list logo
