linaro-dev August 2012

linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org

54 participants
64 discussions

[Question] About the Gator and the Power Probe

by Hongbo Zhang

Hi all, I want to set up the power probe only without any other streamline functions, can I make it? It seems that the IP Address in the Capture Options window must be filled, so the gator driver and daemon should be compiled then, but I have compiling error. Can I set up power probe only? If not, do we have proper gator without compiling error? Thanks.

12 years, 3 months

UFS Linux Driver

by pioioi

12 years, 4 months

Re: [Demo/RFC][PATCH 0/2] ARM: shmobile: PM domain with cpuidle on Mackerel

by Daniel Lezcano

On 08/14/2012 12:40 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi, > > I normally don't post demo patches, but in this particular case it would be > quite difficult to implement the desired functionality on the actual hardware, > due to some complicated dependencies present in there. Thanks a lot Rafael for taking the time to write this demo code. It is very interesting and probably what should do in the other cpuidle drivers. Thanks -- Daniel -- <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

12 years, 4 months

[PATCH 0/2] ST-Ericsson dbx500 thermal driver

by hongbo.zhang

From: "hongbo.zhang" <hongbo.zhang(a)linaro.com> This patch sets contains two patches: [PATCH 1/2] Thermal: Move struct thermal_cooling_device_instance to thermal.h Note: Declaration of struct thermal_cooling_device_instance should be moved to public header file thermal.h, because a thermal zone driver need to operate the cooling devices binded to itself sometimes, for example when the thermal mode is set to "disabled", all the cooling devices should be disabled too. This can be done in thermal_sys.c, but it is better to let the user to do it because different kinds of cooling devices may have different behavors. There is no need to maintain a cooling device list by the thermal driver, because the framework has already done so in the list thermal_zone_device->cooling_devices. Thus the thermal_cooling_device_instance is needed when a thermal driver walks throuth the list thermal_zone_device->cooling_devices. [PATCH 2/2] Thermal: Add ST-Ericsson db8500 thermal dirver. Updated: 1. Device tree is supported. 2. thermal_zone_device_register() updated because of framework update in kernel v3.6-rc1 3. Force cooling deveces to be disabled when thermal mode is disabled. Dependences: 1. Lee Jones PRCMU device tree bindings. 2. Acception of the above thermal framewrok modification. hongbo.zhang (2): Thermal: Move struct thermal_cooling_device_instance to thermal.h Thermal: Add ST-Ericsson db8500 thermal dirver. arch/arm/boot/dts/db8500.dtsi | 11 + arch/arm/configs/u8500_defconfig | 4 + arch/arm/mach-ux500/board-mop500.c | 73 ++++ drivers/thermal/Kconfig | 20 + drivers/thermal/Makefile | 4 +- drivers/thermal/db8500_cpufreq_cooling.c | 175 +++++++++ drivers/thermal/db8500_thermal.c | 511 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/thermal/thermal_sys.c | 11 - include/linux/platform_data/db8500_thermal.h | 39 ++ include/linux/thermal.h | 12 + 10 files changed, 848 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) create mode 100644 drivers/thermal/db8500_cpufreq_cooling.c create mode 100644 drivers/thermal/db8500_thermal.c create mode 100644 include/linux/platform_data/db8500_thermal.h -- 1.7.10

12 years, 4 months

Re: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/3][RFC] devfreq: Core updates to support devices which can idle

by MyungJoo Ham

> On 23 August 2012 09:57, MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham(a)samsung.com> wrote: > >> > On 20 August 2012 12:50, 함명주 <myungjoo.ham(a)samsung.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Prepare devfreq core framework to support devices which > >> > > can idle. When device idleness is detected perhaps through > >> > > runtime-pm, need some mechanism to suspend devfreq load > >> > > monitoring and resume when device is back online. Present > >> > > code continues monitoring unless device is removed from > >> > > devfreq core. > >> > > > >> > > This patch introduces following updates, > >> > > > >> > > - move device load monitoring logic to ondemand governor as > >> > > it is specific to ondemand. > >> > > >> > > >> > We have this ondemand governor in the mainline devfreq. However, > >> > we have (not upstreamed yet) governors with specific purpose (for > >> > GPU or for a specific chip) with load monitoring logic. Although > >> > we don't have them upstreamed yet, why don't you keep the monitoring > >> > logic sharable by other governors. (From today, I'm not objecting to > >> > have individual workqueue, but I still don't want to let each active > >> > governor reimplement the same things.) > >> > > >> > > >> > >> If more governors are planned based on load monitoring, possibly > >> ondemand is not good enough even after adding additional > >> configurable parameters. Could you please describe one such > >> case which demand new governor? > >> > >> Please find my next comments. > > > > GPU devfreq driver requires behaviors similar to conservative though > > not exactly same. > > > > In our internal development branch, it increases frequencies differently > > according to the current usage (# GPU cores used and % each core activated). > > If it's almost 100% and the queue is filling up, it goes to max. > > If it's (for example) 98%, it goes to the next faster step. > > Besides, GPU developers want to differ the poling intervals according > > to the current frequency. > > > > > > Another case is with bus + memory-interface case. We are going to use > > a custom governor for them as each bus and memory-interface has its > > own DVFS capability while we want them to coordinate. The two drivers > > may be hooked by the custom governor. We don't have a specific detail > > with this as it is developed by another division. However, what I know > > is that they are going to use their own custon governor with > > ondemand-like behavior in principle. > > > Ok. Thanks. > > > > Because devfreq is meant to be used by various types of devices, > > we cannot assume that the default governor is "mostly" fine. > > Device driver writers can embed governors in their own devfreq > > driver code ("custom governor"). > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > - devfreq core interacts with governors via events to perform > >> > > specific actions. These events include start/stop devfreq, > >> > > and frequency limit changes outside devfreq. This sets ground > >> > > for adding suspend/resume events. > >> > > >> > > >> > event_handler with START/STOP/UPDATE seem fine. > >> > > >> > However, init() and exit() should be different from START/STOP. > >> > We do not need to do init and exit every time when we do runtime > >> > suspend/resume. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> I agree and its already taken care in this patch. > >> > >> DEVFREQ_GOV_START : Event for initializing and starting of devfreq governor > >> for a device. Happens only when device is added using devfreq_add_device(). > >> > >> DEVFREQ_GOV_STOP: Event for stopping and uninitialization of devfreq governor > >> for a device. Happens only when device is removed using devfreq_remove_device(). > >> > >> Events introduced in next patch (2/3) - > >> DEVFREQ_GOV_SUSPEND: Event for suspending devfreq of a device. I.e > >> suspending of load monitoring of device in case of ondemand governor. > >> Happens only when devfreq_suspend_device() is called. > >> > >> DEVFREQ_GOV_RESUME: Event for resuming devfreq of a device. I.e > >> continue load monitoring of already suspended device in case of ondemand > >> governor. Happens only when devfreq_resume_device() is called. > > > > Ah.. suspend/resume events are seperated. Please never mind this. > > > >> > > >> > > - use per device work instead of global work to monitor device > >> > > load. This enables suspend/resume of device devfreq and > >> > > reduces monitoring code complexity. > >> > > >> > > >> > It's fine to have a delayed work struct per device. > >> > > >> > However, please try to keep as many things/features in devfreq.c as > >> > possible; i.e., reduce features and code size of governors. Because, > >> > we will be supporting various types of devices with devfreq, there > >> > will be various governors and I don't want them to have shared things > >> > reimplemented. Dealing with the delayed work at devfreq.c and let > >> > governors choose to use it (at its struct) or not should be fine. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Delayed work is of only relevance to ondemand governor - justifies why > >> struct delayed work moved from devfreq.c to governor_simpleondemand.c. > >> When delayed work is optional for governors to use, then let governors > >> handle them if needed instead of devfreq core. > >> > >> With this change, we will not be forcing next upcoming devfreq governors > >> to use delayed work for load monitoring(if required) but instead flexibility > >> to have their own mechanisms. Its up to the governors to decide > >> how it wants to do dvfs of a device. But imperative to respond the events. > > > > As mentioned above, please do not assume that the default governors > > (drivers/devfreq/governor_*.c) will be only governors available and > > ondemand will be the only "active" governor for the future. > > > > I think it'd be better for the driver writes to reuse code than to > > copy and paste the code. > > > > Some governors may use some other polling/sampling mechanisms; however, > > still, providing delayed work at the core does not mean that governors > > must use the default delayed work struct. They may simply not use it > > as userspace, performance, and powersave do. > > > > If code re-use is only the concern, instead of core handling delayed work > which is optional for governors, how about providing load monitoring > helper functions to governors? something like, > > drivers/devfreq/governor.h > ------------------------------------ > int devfreq_monitor_start(struct devfreq *devfreq); > int devfreq_monitor_stop(struct devfreq *devfreq); > int devfreq_monitor_suspend(struct devfreq *devfreq); > int devfreq_monitor_resume(struct devfreq *devfreq); Yes, putting a delayed-work struct in struct devfreq and let devfreq.c handle that delayed-work is what I think appropriate, too. Anyway, what would be the difference between start vs resume and between stop vs suspend for the per-devfreq-struct delayed-work at the side of devfreq.c? Devfreq.c will simply start/stop the delayed-work with the values in devfreq, won't it? Or would there be any common tasks for suspend and resume that are not going to be required for start/stop? Assuming that start/stop will also be used by userspace input of "polling = some number / 0", it appears that there would be no difference with suspend/resume. > > These delayed work handling functions will be implemented by devfreq.c > and are called from governors in response to events. > > With this, governors can re-use the delayed work based load monitoring > mechanism and also have flexibility to implement their own monitoring > mechanism based on their objectives. > > >> > >> > > >> > In this patchset, the size of ondemand governor has been enlarged > >> > too much for that purpose. > > > > I said this because I do not want governors to act as if they are core > > and I do not want to make writing governors too difficult for device > > driver writers. I want them to focus on the "policy" only, not the > > mechanism. > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > - Force devfreq users to set min/max supported frequencies in > >> > > device profile to help governors to predict target frequecy > >> > > with in limits. > >> > > >> > > >> > Is this really necessary? > >> > > >> > > >> Yes. Mainly for two reasons, > >> > >> 1. Devfreq core provides sysfs interface for usespace to set min/max > >> operating frequency for a device. These values must be within device > >> supported min/max frequency limits. > > > > No. they do not need to be within device supported limits. > > > > When I say "CPU should be running at least 50MHz" when the CPU supports > > 1000MHz ~ 3000MHz, there is no problem. Running at 1000MHz does not > > contradict with the condition. > > > > When I say "CPU should be running at least 4000MHz" for the same CPU, > > It is fine to set the CPU at max available. > > > >> 2. Governors should know device supported min/max opps and use > >> them where ever needed. Never assume UINT_MAX as max frequency. > > > > The core and governors do not need to know such information. > > They only need to provide "recommended" frequency. The corresponding > > driver is going to interpret it properly. Whenever we can, > > it's better to remove device specific information from governors > > and cores as long as it does not significantly increase the > > complexity of drivers. > > > > Sorry, but I disagree on this point. Devfreq core should not consider user > input for granted and suggest next recommended target freq which is beyond > device supported frequency and let driver to interpret it. I don't think passing > device supported min/max from driver would increase the complexity of driver. > Rather it would help in recommending freq with in limits. > > This information also helps user space to know the device operating limits. With the optional frequency statistics support proposed by Jonghwa Lee, devfreq.c is going to be accepting the list of operable frequencies, where the max/min values are trivially extracted. With this optional values, we can create sysfs entries to show max/min possible or operable frequencies. (they are difference from the min_freq and max_freq, which are user's limits) I still don't understand why enforcing devfreq device drivers to declare min/max frequencies to devfreq core. Because the devfreq device drivers already know the hardware limits (otherwise, we are not able to enforce them to do so), it is not beneficial for the device driver to let devfreq core provide such limits to the device drivers (they already know). Yes, passing values filtered by min/max values reported by device drivers from core does not increase the complexity at device drivers. However, it adds codes at _every_ governor to filter the values, which is going to be filtered at each device driver anyway. For devices supporting 100, 200, 400 MHz, governors will pass 150, 151, 201, 203, and such even if we filter min/max. I just don't see a benefic to enforce device drivers to declare min/max to the core and enforce governors to recommend between the restricted values, which are going to be regulated at device drivers anyway. (and very trivial to be regulated by drivers) If this is meant to show the min/max values to the users, making it optional should be enough. Besides, allowing users to enter any arbitrary large values (e.g., 9999999999) to make it run at maximum frequency and enter any small values (e.g., 1) to make it run at minimum frequency makes things easier. I don't see why we should get them errors for such inputs. Cheers! MyungJoo > > > UINT_MAX means "I recommend to run as fast as possible." Then, the > > driver only needs to provide the fastest frequency. The core and > > governor does not need to say the specific frequency. > > > > > > Cheers! > > MyungJoo > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > The devfreq apis are not modified and are kept intact. > >> > >> > >> The ABIs are not. > >> > >> You can no longer do "# echo 0 > ABI_path" in order to deactivate. > >> > >> > >> Only relevant for ondemand governor. Load monitoring can be > >> deactivated when polling_ms is set to zero. Next version of patch > >> will fix this. Thanks. > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers! > >> MyungJoo > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Rajagopal Venkat <rajagopal.venkat(a)linaro.org> > >> > --- > >> > >> > >> ps. please make the patch a bit more readable. (please don't shuffle > >> the location of pre-existed functions) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> Rajagopal > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> MyungJoo Ham (함명주), PHD > >> > >> System S/W Lab, S/W Platform Team, Software Center > >> Samsung Electronics > >> Cell: +82-10-6714-2858 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > Regards, > Rajagopal > > > > > > >

12 years, 4 months

Re: TI LT Android for Panda board and perf

by Dmitry Antipov

On 08/30/2012 01:26 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > I tried 2012.07 (http://releases.linaro.org/12.07) ubuntu images and I get this > when I run perf :( > > perf_3.4.0-2: error while loading shared libraries: libelf.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory If your board connected to the Internet, or if you're able to access package repositories in another way, try: apt-get install libelf1 libdw1 liblzma5 binutils libbz2-1.0 zlib1g > Do you always have display connected on your panda while using ubuntu? Mine without display keeps > throwing these error logs Yes, a lot of them on the console; due to this, I run almost everything via ssh session. Dmitry

12 years, 4 months

Deploying new code to snapshots.linaro.org

by Danilo Šegan

Hi all, In the next hour or so we'll be deploying new code to snapshots.linaro.org (the web site itself): this means full BUILD-INFO support for those that care. Since the release is right around the corner, we are ready to roll back as soon as someone notices a problem. FWIW, we'll still be running the old code on oldsnapshots.linaro.org (for OpenID/SSL access, you will get a "wrong certificate" warning giving you a certificate for snapshots.linaro.org). Cheers, Danilo

12 years, 4 months

Android Platform Team 2012/8/29 meeting agenda posted

by Zach Pfeffer

Feel free to take a look at: https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Android/Meetings/2012-08-29 ...and add to it, comment, etc... Vishal will run the meeting since I'm at plumbers. -- Zach Pfeffer Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog

12 years, 4 months

Fwd: Contributions and conflict-prone areas

by Zach Pfeffer

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jean-Baptiste Queru <jbq(a)android.com> Date: 28 August 2012 15:59 Subject: Contributions and conflict-prone areas To: android-contrib(a)googlegroups.com I've been looking at many Android contributions recently, which gives be some good visibility over the difficulties in merging changes all the way upstream into Google's internal tree. Generally speaking, at the moment the gap between AOSP and Google's internal master tree is unusually small, and that allows a very large majority of contributions to merge without conflicts. By looking at many changes, I spotted 3 areas where merges don't go smoothly. Those areas are Bluetooth, Email, and Location, and most changes related to those cause merge problems. Digging a bit, those look like they've been refactored quite heavily in Google's internal tree, which causes the conflicts. For anyone considering to contribute in any of those 3 areas. I recommend waiting until the next major release (and I don't have any ETA for it). >From what I've seen, merges are uneventful in all other areas of the Android tree. Thanks, JBQ -- Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru Technical Lead, Android Open Source Project, Google. Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private will likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further warning. -- -- Zach Pfeffer Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog

12 years, 4 months

Re: TI LT Android for Panda board and perf

by Dmitry Antipov

On 08/28/2012 10:58 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > Does perf work fine on panda with the Linaro Ubuntu images? Yes,it should work for 2012.07 Ubuntu images (except cross-replaying, which works since 3.6.0-rc1). > Wanted to experiment with the tool a little, was wondering whats a good place to > start. You can start from my rudimentary page at: https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/PowerManagement/Doc/PerfRecordReplay As it's name says, it's mostly around recording and replaying features. Common information, examples and so may be found at: https://perf.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page Dmitry

12 years, 4 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-dev August 2012