Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752542AbbHCJeY (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2015 05:34:24 -0400 Received: from down.free-electrons.com ([37.187.137.238]:58547 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751756AbbHCJeW (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2015 05:34:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:34:20 +0200 From: Maxime Ripard To: Timo Sigurdsson Cc: wens@csie.org, julian.calaby@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] ARM: dts: sunxi: Raise minimum CPU voltage for sun7i-a20 to a level all boards can supply Message-ID: <20150803093420.GC2564@lukather> References: <1438543386-7253-1-git-send-email-public_timo.s@silentcreek.de> <20150803090352.621CC6C80865@dd34104.kasserver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gErn/dzahY/aMKz2" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150803090352.621CC6C80865@dd34104.kasserver.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2463 Lines: 63 --gErn/dzahY/aMKz2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:03:52AM +0200, Timo Sigurdsson wrote: > Hi again, >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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,=20 > 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. Maxime --=20 Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com --gErn/dzahY/aMKz2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVvzWcAAoJEBx+YmzsjxAgXwEP/iieVOvbBml4BaE1q5K9pmbo ay6FFK3XiXIxrEUIlKUt77dYAWu0D0fe7FxVuXpwD9eRcWe/hYW2rTlCYgnNdRhF T9kGiMB++6qXydd3Gpj36cIsrdU22+Qvlzaz5tTQQj8OCe37vmEHv9HnOmnCOWlK AHf6tADsy0sYpg/oQ/S2akOVroCbIgGHAmaaHsdLRq0AOHNi9EVlqCyMEKQEe+Rw T+a41cxEbhrPvZ+jnNSetw2Hjt3T3iwcdjNfLjgDbNmLLnAJ/XEqh1MMbZpG923B KmAwkcbY8q/5wfxjcLiFRB6p8+60nTk8r3lnX4R7Ql7K5ba/6sPtCCZe4xjeiQQO icp5NnNichm3jCVdGI4JKChCoclMh6JLsiucLlwmqOuYxSwSkrXbdJVKqsOBSwgw aj1D3N++4u9jvKU05IQSl4snxZTAqW/o27ar3JpKdUd6QQcR517cByMuSSRaOCGA v1gADJbyo0JIs+MHeOYdZyhUtIh2NR0GVl7JwczePzFk728UFYPO9rf336AnZHy+ e9yJ5ob8K9yEzcFxYkNxp2S1mt6m9q6wr4rj9397H6CRJy1pUspExSUxoafNqcQJ 9r9pdkqqHSqmSJPED9b+7BEc/I6NL5pQurh4gBouuNGcGhqVSQFtNk6PFrWZW0DZ eyByY6b1FPi2/OMc2JFC =enqk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gErn/dzahY/aMKz2-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/