MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150803093420.GC2564@lukather>
References: <1438543386-7253-1-git-send-email-public_timo.s@silentcreek.de>
 <CAGRGNgV6b9yt2HnB2x2Wyc05KEahoX-Y+mVhxsryztcfA36H1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGb2v67o-=_cL2RWfXJ+3C86zfQ_1b5DYRi3_zwvwy6su6+gdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGRGNgXH90m9h0DDejd5MTf8enduGFQ8dPKrRhmc8Z6y_PaC1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150803090352.621CC6C80865@dd34104.kasserver.com> <20150803093420.GC2564@lukather>
From: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:36:32 +1000
Message-ID: <CAGRGNgUohUAH9_jUfFrg8w+EWRq1A9WLHO=pcFDnp9djbPL1qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] ARM: dts: sunxi: Raise minimum CPU voltage
 for sun7i-a20 to a level all boards can supply
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Timo Sigurdsson <public_timo.s@silentcreek.de>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Mailing List, Arm" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com>, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1552
Lines: 40

Hi Maxime,

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:03:52AM +0200, Timo Sigurdsson wrote:
>> Hi again,
>>
>> 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.

Oh, I didn't know that. Therefore I withdraw my objections, patch away!

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
--
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/