From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Menon, Nishanth" Subject: Re: [PM-WIP_CPUFREQ][PATCH 0/6 V3] Cleanups for cpufreq Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 11:36:18 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1306366733-8439-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <87ipsxcoz0.fsf@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog101.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.67]:39776 "EHLO na3sys009aog101.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932491Ab1EZSis convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 May 2011 14:38:48 -0400 Received: by mail-ww0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 28so1055771wwb.3 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87ipsxcoz0.fsf@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Hilman Cc: linux-omap On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:10, Kevin Hilman wrote: > So here's a dumb question, being rather ignorant of CPUfreq on SMP. > > Should we be running a CPUfreq instance on both CPUs when they cannot= be > scaled independently? > > What is being scaled here is actually the cluster (the MPU SS via > dpll_mpu_ck), not an individual CPU. =A0So to me, it only makes sense= to > have a an instance of the driver per scalable device, which in this c= ase > is a single MPU SS. > > What am I missing? my understanding from the code is that we have one instance of cpufreq controllable from either cpu0 or 1. Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html