On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 07:45:06AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > On 28.05.2020 15:43, Mark Brown wrote: > > This forces every supply to have something which explicitly manages > > voltages which means that if one of the coupled supplies doesn't really > > care about the voltage (perhaps doesn't even have any explicit > > consumers) and just needs to be within a certain range of another supply > > then it'll end up restricting things needlessly. > Frankly, that's exactly what we need for Exynos5422 case. If devfreq > driver is not enabled/compiled, we want to keep the "vdd_int" volatage > unchanged. This confirms me that we really need to have a custom coupler > for Exynos5422 case. It will solve such issues without adding hacks to > regulator core. It sounds like you need that or some form of cooperation between the devfreq and cpufreq drivers. > > Saravana was trying to do some stuff with sync_state() which might be > > interesting here although I have concerns with that approach too: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200527074057.246606-1-saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx/ > This still doesn't solve the above mentioned case. I didn't mean the particular patch, I meant something using the sync_state() callback.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
