Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 May 2014 11:34:32 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add support for descending order for cpufreq table | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
On 7 May 2014 06:30, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> wrote: > So, we could do [2] as default as well, if it is determined to impact > no one else making any form of assumptions on table ordering - but it > might be preferable for drivers not to depend on framework ordering of > data as things could change in the future.
Exactly and that's what we discussed earlier. I don't want to change the default behavior at all, as somebody may request the ascending order tomorrow :)
@Jonghwan: Please consider doing this: - Don't play with the order of frequencies in table. - Instead initialize .driver_data filed with values that you need to write in the registers for all frequencies. i.e. 0 for highest frequency and FREQ_COUNT-1 for lowest one.
| |