On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 03:27:56PM +0200, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:38:54 +0200 > Ondřej Jirman <megous@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > If so, then yes, trying to switch to the 24MHz oscillator before > > > applying the factors, and then switching back when the PLL is stable > > > would be a nice solution. > > > > > > I just checked, and all the SoCs we've had so far have that > > > possibility, so if it works, for now, I'd like to stick to that. > > > > It would need to be tested. U-boot does the change only once, while the > > kernel would be doing it all the time and between various frequencies > > and PLL settings. So the issues may show up with this solution too. > > I don't think this is a good idea: the CPU clock may be changed at any > time with the CPUFreq governor. I don't see the system moving from > 1008MHz to 24MHz and then to 1200MHz when some computation is needed! It wouldn't happen that often. The sampling rate for the governor is 1000 times the latency, so, at most, 0.1% of the time would be spent at 24MHz. And if you're really concerned about performances, you won't enable cpufreq anyway. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
