On 04/22/2013 09:11 AM, Bedia, Vaibhav wrote:
(removing Anil's email-id since it's no longer valid)
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 05:54:10, Kondratiuk, Taras wrote:
On 04/19/2013 07:21 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 14:55-20130419, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
Using a "voltage tolerance" for doing DVFS is
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 06:11:12AM +, Bedia, Vaibhav wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 05:54:10, Kondratiuk, Taras wrote:
> that the PMIC outputs can come is either 1.25V or 1.275V. Now i think there's
> been some confusion in the implementation phase due to things like board level
> IR drops a
(removing Anil's email-id since it's no longer valid)
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 05:54:10, Kondratiuk, Taras wrote:
> On 04/19/2013 07:21 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 14:55-20130419, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> >> Using a "voltage tolerance" for doing DVFS is not a proper way.
> >> It leads to a fe
On 04/19/2013 07:21 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 14:55-20130419, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
>> Using a "voltage tolerance" for doing DVFS is not a proper way.
>> It leads to a few issues:
>> - voltage is limited to a narrow range near OPP voltage,
>> so other consumers of the same regulator can't
On 14:55-20130419, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> Using a "voltage tolerance" for doing DVFS is not a proper way.
> It leads to a few issues:
> - voltage is limited to a narrow range near OPP voltage,
> so other consumers of the same regulator can't set their own constraints
> if they don't overlap
Using a "voltage tolerance" for doing DVFS is not a proper way.
It leads to a few issues:
- voltage is limited to a narrow range near OPP voltage,
so other consumers of the same regulator can't set their own constraints
if they don't overlap with this narrow range. No ganged rails :(
- usually
6 matches
Mail list logo
