Hi Kevin, Tomasz,
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.figa@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for taking a look at this.
On 23.08.2014 01:54, 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.
No, it has not. In general it was already too late in the release cycle when the last version was posted.
I had a plan to take it through clock tree with Kukjin's and Viresh's cooperation, but now as you say it...
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.
I have tested this patch series on SMDK5420 with cpuidle (with and without b.L switcher enabled).
As of now voltage scaling support is not there in generic big-little cpufreq driver (arm_big_little.c). Hence need to tie arm and kfc voltages to highest level for testing.
Without this change stability issues are there, but with this change everything is stable.
I'd definitely like to see a clarification on this issues, before this series hits mainline or at least its parts related to affected SoCs. Also I'd like to hear some confirmation from Samsung Poland R&D Center guys (on CC), whether this code works stable on their target boards (Universal C210, Trats, Trats2).
Also, the patch below[2] is needed for 5800.
FWIW, I have a temporary branch[1] based on the v3.17-rc branch of the exynos-reference tree where I've added the DT patch needed for CPUidle, this series (and it's dependencies) which is what I'm using for testing.
The patch looks fine to me (well, it's trivial :)), thanks.
Best regards, Tomasz
linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
regards, Chander