Hi Both
Looks like a big.LITTLE cpufreq fix didn't get marked for stable and so is missing from LSK 3.10 and 3.14. It's commit 8f3ba3d3257be8 (cpufreq: arm_big_little: set 'physical_cluster' for each CPU)
Just spend a couple of days debugging a problem that turned out to be this. Can we get it added to the LSKs or should it go to stable trees first?
On 29 September 2014 17:32, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) tixy@linaro.org wrote:
Looks like a big.LITTLE cpufreq fix didn't get marked for stable and so is missing from LSK 3.10 and 3.14. It's commit 8f3ba3d3257be8 (cpufreq: arm_big_little: set 'physical_cluster' for each CPU)
Just spend a couple of days debugging a problem that turned out to be this. Can we get it added to the LSKs or should it go to stable trees first?
This code is entirely upstream so I don't see any reason not to send it via LTS?
On 29 September 2014 22:02, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) tixy@linaro.org wrote:
Looks like a big.LITTLE cpufreq fix didn't get marked for stable and so is missing from LSK 3.10 and 3.14. It's commit 8f3ba3d3257be8 (cpufreq: arm_big_little: set 'physical_cluster' for each CPU)
Just spend a couple of days debugging a problem that turned out to be this. Can we get it added to the LSKs or should it go to stable trees first?
Doesn't make sense for 3.10 as the bug got introduced in 3.13 itself with IKS support to the driver. I have now sent it for stable 3.13/14..
-- viresh
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 09:58 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 29 September 2014 22:02, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) tixy@linaro.org wrote:
Looks like a big.LITTLE cpufreq fix didn't get marked for stable and so is missing from LSK 3.10 and 3.14. It's commit 8f3ba3d3257be8 (cpufreq: arm_big_little: set 'physical_cluster' for each CPU)
Just spend a couple of days debugging a problem that turned out to be this. Can we get it added to the LSKs or should it go to stable trees first?
Doesn't make sense for 3.10 as the bug got introduced in 3.13 itself with IKS support to the driver.
Yes, you're right, I got confused about what's in LSK and mainline. Mark, are you going to add it to LSK 3.10 (v3.10/topic/tc2) or should I just keep it in my Juno tree?
I have now sent it for stable 3.13/14..
Many thanks.
On 30 September 2014 09:39, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) tixy@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 09:58 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Doesn't make sense for 3.10 as the bug got introduced in 3.13 itself with IKS support to the driver.
Yes, you're right, I got confused about what's in LSK and mainline. Mark, are you going to add it to LSK 3.10 (v3.10/topic/tc2) or should I just keep it in my Juno tree?
Picked it in now.
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
-
Jon Medhurst (Tixy) -
Mark Brown -
Viresh Kumar