On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 02:22:34PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 09:44:52PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 11:10:30AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > Fix your mailer to word wrap properly please. If you mean last mail I sent, I didn't see anything wrong. I use mutt. > > > > The *call* is there in the regulator subsystem, it's just that none of > > > the drivers back it up with an actual implementation yet. Which turns > > > out to be a good thing as cpufreq can't currently understand variable > > > latencies and the governors don't deal well with non-trivial latencies > > > anyway. > > > but clk API don't have such calls. and many SoCs only adjust clk > > frequencies, using one single voltage. > > I've not suggested doing this in the clock API, only for the regulator. > For the clocks it's less clear that it's useful as you don't have the > bulk operations and it's much rarer to need them. > > > > The problem with device tree is that once you've defined a binding > > > you're stuck with it, it's very hard to change - witness all the magic > > > number based stuff with the interrupt bindings for example > > > So what's your suggestion? We can not set transition_latency to set > > random number. > > As I've repeatedly said I think you should define it to be the latency > for the SoC only, not for the regulators. Sometimes, regulators are in SoC too. To avoid confusion, I'll use below: clk-trans-latency = <61036>; Thanks Richard > > _______________________________________________ > 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
