Hi Maxime, Maxime Ripard schrieb am 03.08.2015 11:34: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:03:52AM +0200, Timo Sigurdsson wrote: >> Julian Calaby schrieb am 03.08.2015 06:22: >> > My only real objection here is are there boards that can go down to >> > 0.9v and if so, won't this change make them less power efficient in >> > the almost-idle case? And are those power savings enough to justify >> > not accepting this patch? >> >> It will probably make those boards less power efficient, yes. On the >> other hand, boards that have their CPU regulator set to min. 1.0V might >> also draw more power because the lowest frequency is not available, >> even though the savings due to frequency are likely to be lower than >> the savings due to voltage. > > Guys, isn't this whole discussion a bit moot? We're not doing any kind > of power management but cpufreq, so maybe there's a lot more to do > before we actually can have these kind of arguments? > > Plus this OPP has never been used anyway, so this patch is not going > to increase the power consumption either. You are right. When I wrote that, I was under the impression that the Olinuxino Lime 2 board at least used this setting since it has has a cpu regulator defined to go as low as 0.7V. But now I checked again and see the regulator is not referenced in the cpu node, so I guess cpufreq doesn't use it. So, this discussion was really hypothetical and more importantly, as you mentioned, it's an out-of-spec opp that shouldn't be supported anyway. Thanks, Timo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
