From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753151AbbCKLDx (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 07:03:53 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com ([209.85.218.41]:46672 "EHLO mail-oi0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752526AbbCKLDt (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 07:03:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150311105307.GW28806@sirena.org.uk> References: <1425458956-20665-1-git-send-email-pi-cheng.chen@linaro.org> <1425458956-20665-4-git-send-email-pi-cheng.chen@linaro.org> <20150311105307.GW28806@sirena.org.uk> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:33:49 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] cpufreq: mediatek: add Mediatek cpufreq driver From: Viresh Kumar To: Mark Brown Cc: Mark Rutland , Catalin Marinas , Chen Fan , Ian Campbell , Howard Chen , "Joe.C" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Linaro Kernel Mailman List , Pawel Moll , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Sascha Hauer , Rob Herring , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, Matthias Brugger , Eddie Huang , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Thomas Petazzoni , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kumar Gala Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 that, I did exactly opposite of this earlier :( >> 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 idea in this case, but I am sure if this kind of >> > virtual regulator is acceptable. > >> @Mark: Is this allowed to create virtual regulator for a CPU ? > > I don't really know what the above means or what problem it's supposed > to solve. 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 tried to do is, - Configure one of the regulators using cpufreq-dt - And other one using cpufreq frequency change notifiers This looks awkward.. What I suggested was to create another virtual regulator for CPU which will eventually configure both the regulators. And so the question that such virtual regulators are allowed or not. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] cpufreq: mediatek: add Mediatek cpufreq driver Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:33:49 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1425458956-20665-1-git-send-email-pi-cheng.chen@linaro.org> <1425458956-20665-4-git-send-email-pi-cheng.chen@linaro.org> <20150311105307.GW28806@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150311105307.GW28806@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Mark Rutland , Catalin Marinas , Chen Fan , Ian Campbell , Howard Chen , "Joe.C" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Linaro Kernel Mailman List , Pawel Moll , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Sascha Hauer , Rob Herring , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, Matthias Brugger , Eddie Huang , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Thomas Petazzoni , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kumar List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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 that, I did exactly opposite of this earlier :( >> 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 idea in this case, but I am sure if this kind of >> > virtual regulator is acceptable. > >> @Mark: Is this allowed to create virtual regulator for a CPU ? > > I don't really know what the above means or what problem it's supposed > to solve. 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 tried to do is, - Configure one of the regulators using cpufreq-dt - And other one using cpufreq frequency change notifiers This looks awkward.. What I suggested was to create another virtual regulator for CPU which will eventually configure both the regulators. And so the question that such virtual regulators are allowed or not. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:33:49 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v2 3/4] cpufreq: mediatek: add Mediatek cpufreq driver In-Reply-To: <20150311105307.GW28806@sirena.org.uk> References: <1425458956-20665-1-git-send-email-pi-cheng.chen@linaro.org> <1425458956-20665-4-git-send-email-pi-cheng.chen@linaro.org> <20150311105307.GW28806@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 that, I did exactly opposite of this earlier :( >> 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 idea in this case, but I am sure if this kind of >> > virtual regulator is acceptable. > >> @Mark: Is this allowed to create virtual regulator for a CPU ? > > I don't really know what the above means or what problem it's supposed > to solve. 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 tried to do is, - Configure one of the regulators using cpufreq-dt - And other one using cpufreq frequency change notifiers This looks awkward.. What I suggested was to create another virtual regulator for CPU which will eventually configure both the regulators. And so the question that such virtual regulators are allowed or not.