Hey,
On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 16:54 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Tomasz Figa tomasz.figa@gmail.com writes:
Kukjin,
On 31.07.2014 20:32, Kukjin Kim wrote:
On 07/30/14 17:07, Thomas Abraham wrote:
The new CPU clock type allows the use of generic CPUfreq drivers. So for Exynos4210/5250, switch to using generic cpufreq driver. For Exynos5420, which did not have CPUfreq driver support, enable the use of generic CPUfreq driver.
Suggested-by: Tomasz Figat.figa@samsung.com Cc: Kukjin Kimkgene.kim@samsung.com
Looks good to me,
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim kgene.kim@samsung.com
BTW, who will handle this series? I hope see this series in 3.17.
This series consists mostly of clock changes and it likely depends on patches already in my for-next, so I would be inclined toward taking it through samsung-clk tree.
So has this series been picked up anywhere? I don't see it in your samsung-clk tree, nor in Kukjin's for-next.
Also, I'm curious whether or how this is has been tested on big.LITTLE SoCs.
I'm trying it on the 5800/Chromebook2 and it's not terribly stable. I'm testing along with CPUidle, so there may be some untested interactions there as it seems a bit more stable without CPUidle enabled.
I'd love to hear from anyone else that's testing CPUidle and CPUfreq together big.LITTLE 5420/5800, with or without the switcher.
Also, the patch below[2] is needed for 5800.
For reference, I had the same patch in a kernel tree we recently used for a demo on the chromebook 2 13" (Exynos 5800). We didn't see any stability issues due to this without CPUidle (using the ondemand govenor). The kernel we ended up using had CONFIG_BL_SWITCHER disabled, but i don't remember seeing stability issues when i did a testrun with that enabled.