Message ID | 20190627133424.4980-1-sibis@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | DDR/L3 Scaling support on SDM845 SoCs | expand |
On 27-06-19, 19:04, Sibi Sankar wrote: > This RFC series aims to extend cpu based scaling support to L3/DDR on > SDM845 SoCs. The patch series depends on "Introduce OPP bandwidth bindings" > series (https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10912993/). A part of the > series will still be applicable if we decide to go ahead with the proposal > from Saravana as well so I decided to post this out. > > v2: > * Incorporated Viresh's comments from: > [1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190410102429.r6j6brm5kspmqxc3@vireshk-i7/ > [2]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190410112516.gnh77jcwawvld6et@vireshk-i7/ Did you get a chance to look at this ? lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190622003449.33707-1-saravanak@google.com
Hey Viresh, On 2019-07-01 14:59, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 27-06-19, 19:04, Sibi Sankar wrote: >> This RFC series aims to extend cpu based scaling support to L3/DDR on >> SDM845 SoCs. The patch series depends on "Introduce OPP bandwidth >> bindings" >> series (https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10912993/). A part of the >> series will still be applicable if we decide to go ahead with the >> proposal >> from Saravana as well so I decided to post this out. >> >> v2: >> * Incorporated Viresh's comments from: >> [1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190410102429.r6j6brm5kspmqxc3@vireshk-i7/ >> [2]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190410112516.gnh77jcwawvld6et@vireshk-i7/ > > Did you get a chance to look at this ? > > lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190622003449.33707-1-saravanak@google.com Yes, I have v2 of cpufreq passive governor patch in the works based on Saravana's series. I plan on posting it out end of week. I had sent this series out since a portion (specifically update_ voltage helper and adding opp_tables to cpufreq-hw driver) would remain constant irrespective of the path we choose. FWIW, on SDM845 SoCs we cannot use a rpmh_write_batch based icc_set on cpufreq fast switch pathw since it uses the "wait_for_completion" api.