Hi Bryan, On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:59:02AM -0800, Bryan Huntsman wrote: > On 12/16/2011 02:52 AM, Jamie Iles wrote: > > > >> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, l_p_j_ref); > >> +static unsigned long l_p_j_ref_freq; > >> + > >> +static struct clk *cpu_clk; > > > > This assumes that all CPU's share the same clk and run at the same rate. > > Is that a fair/safe assumption? I honestly don't know the answer to > > this so it's just a question!!! > > On MSM, cpus independently scale both frequency and voltage. Our clock > driver isn't upstream yet. David Brown has a preliminary version here: > > https://www.codeaurora.org/gitweb/quic/kernel/?p=davidb/linux-msm.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/msm-clock-rfc > > Once we get our driver upstream, MSM will be an exception and not select > ARM_GENERIC_CPUFREQ. We'll probably have a separate msm-cpufreq.c > driver under drivers/cpufreq/. Do you have to patch to implement per-cpu udelay? In current code, udelay uses global loops_per_jiffy. Thanks Richard > > - Bryan > > -- > Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
