On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:19:11PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> Even cpu node is device, I still need to find a way to get it. I think it's
> better have another patch to fix the regulator dt binding in cpu node. I'll
> not include it in this patch series.
I'd expect this to be easy if we can fi
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 13:12, Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:44:57PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
>> We will convert all classes to buses over time time, and have a single
>> type of device and a single type of subsystem.
>
> Are there any conversions that have been done already th
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:43, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 December 2011, Richard Zhao wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 09:20:46AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
>
>> > > > > You also need to define how the core supplies get looked up.
>> > >
>> > > > It's pure software. platform uses this
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 01:49:07PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 13:12, Mark Brown
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:44:57PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >
> >> We will convert all classes to buses over time time, and have a single
> >> type of device and a single type o
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:44:57PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> We will convert all classes to buses over time time, and have a single
> type of device and a single type of subsystem.
Are there any conversions that have been done already that I can look at
for reference?
_
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 09:43:34AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 December 2011, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > Mark, cpu node is not a struct device, sys_device instead. I can not find
> > regulator via device/dt node. Can I still use the string to get regulator
> > after converting to DT
On Wednesday 21 December 2011, Richard Zhao wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 09:20:46AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > > > > You also need to define how the core supplies get looked up.
> > >
> > > > It's pure software. platform uses this driver have to define "cpu"
> > > > consumer.
> > >
> >
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 09:20:46AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:48:45PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 07:27:03AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 02:59:04PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> > > > My comments on t
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 02:33:36AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:24:53AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 01:32:21AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > That's not the point - the point is that you may do something like
> > > specify a defined set of freq
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:24:53AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 01:32:21AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > That's not the point - the point is that you may do something like
> > specify a defined set of frequencies and just drop the minimum supported
> > voltage without alteri
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 01:32:21AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 09:20:46AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:48:45PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > Note also that not all hardware specifies things in terms of a fixed set
> > > of operating points, so
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 09:20:46AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:48:45PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Note also that not all hardware specifies things in terms of a fixed set
> > of operating points, sometimes only the minimum voltage specification is
> > varied with freq
Hi Mark,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:48:45PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 07:27:03AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 02:59:04PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > My comments on the previous version of the patch still apply:
>
> > > - The voltage ranges
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 07:27:03AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 02:59:04PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > My comments on the previous version of the patch still apply:
> > - The voltage ranges being set need to be specified as ranges.
> cpu normally need strict voltages. a
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 02:59:04PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:21:40AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > It support single core and multi-core ARM SoCs. But currently it assume
> > all cores share the same frequency and voltage.
>
> My comments on the previous version of the
在 2011-12-20 下午11:13，"Rob Herring" 写道：
>
> On 12/19/2011 07:59 PM, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:00:44AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On 12/19/2011 08:39 AM, Jamie Iles wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:19:29PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1
在 2011-12-20 下午11:22，"Arnd Bergmann" 写道：
>
> On Tuesday 20 December 2011, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > > +Generic cpufreq driver
> > > +
> > > +Required properties in /cpus/cpu@0:
> > > +- compatible : "generic-cpufreq"
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm not convinced this is the best way to do
On Tuesday 20 December 2011, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > +Generic cpufreq driver
> > +
> > +Required properties in /cpus/cpu@0:
> > +- compatible : "generic-cpufreq"
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm not convinced this is the best way to do this. By requiring a
> > >>> generic-cpufreq compatibl
On 12/19/2011 07:59 PM, Richard Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:00:44AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 08:39 AM, Jamie Iles wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:19:29PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:05:12AM +, Jamie Iles wrote:
> Hi Richard
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:21:40AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> It support single core and multi-core ARM SoCs. But currently it assume
> all cores share the same frequency and voltage.
My comments on the previous version of the patch still apply:
- The voltage ranges being set need to be specif
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:00:44AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 08:39 AM, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:19:29PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:05:12AM +, Jamie Iles wrote:
> >>> Hi Richard,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:21:40A
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:21:40AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> It support single core and multi-core ARM SoCs. But currently it assume
> all cores share the same frequency and voltage.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Zhao
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/generic-cpufreq|7
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:19:29PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:05:12AM +, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:21:40AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > > It support single core and multi-core ARM SoCs. But currently it assume
> > > all
On 12/19/2011 08:39 AM, Jamie Iles wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:19:29PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:05:12AM +, Jamie Iles wrote:
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:21:40AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
It support single core and multi-core A
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:05:12AM +, Jamie Iles wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:21:40AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > It support single core and multi-core ARM SoCs. But currently it assume
> > all cores share the same frequency and voltage.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Richar
It support single core and multi-core ARM SoCs. But currently it assume
all cores share the same frequency and voltage.
Signed-off-by: Richard Zhao
---
.../devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/generic-cpufreq|7 +
drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig|8 +
drivers/cpufreq/Makefi
26 matches
Mail list logo
