On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 07:05:46PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 21/11/2017 19:00, Javi Merino wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:57:06AM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> As I said before, the minimal you guys (ARM and Linaro) can do is to at
> >> least upstream the Juno code! as a reference. Come on guys? what is
> >> preventing you to upstream Juno model?
> >
> > As Ionela pointed out earlier in the thread, the cpufreq driver for Juno
> > was not acceptable for mainline because it used platform specific code.
> > When it was converted to cpufreq-dt, the static power was left behind
> > because it can't be represented in device tree. This is because there
> > isn't a function that works for every SoC, different process nodes
> > (among other things) will need different functions. So it can't be just
> > a bunch of coefficients in DT, we need a function. Hence the callback.
>
> The DT could contain the coef and a compatible string for a specific
> polynomial computation callback. I imagine we should not have a lot of
> different equations, no ?
>
Yeah, that would be another way of doing it. If there is no equation
that correlates all processes, then we need a vendor specific entry, or
a compatible string, as Daniel said.
>
>
> --
> <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
>
> Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
> <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
> <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
>
From 1584700331091537176@xxx Tue Nov 21 18:13:24 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1584123420538137355
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread