On 19 December 2013 10:56, bilhuang <bilhuang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not sure virtual regulator for CPU is a good idea, in addition to that, > we don't have a single SoC OPP table, we need several which are speedo-id > and process-id dependant, but generic cpufreq-cpu0 is assuming there is only > one statically Can't that be handled via DT ? > for some SoC the frequency table is not fixed, they are > created at runtime combining our fast and slow CPU frequency table and dvfs > table. So I'm really not sure is it worth adding so many tweaks in order to > use the generic cpufreq-cpu0 driver. Hmm, maybe I got confused because I don't have a clear picture in my mind. It might be better to go ahead with your implementation for now and after everything is set, we can choose to use cpufreq-cpu0 if it is worth it. -- viresh -- 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
