From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomasz.figa@gmail.com (Tomasz Figa) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 02:02:27 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v9 4/6] ARM: Exynos: switch to using generic cpufreq driver for Exynos4210/5250/5420 In-Reply-To: <7hbnrc6px3.fsf@paris.lan> References: <1406707663-16656-1-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <1406707663-16656-5-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <53DA8BB9.6020702@samsung.com> <53DA8D85.3050106@gmail.com> <7hbnrc6px3.fsf@paris.lan> Message-ID: <53F7DA13.6090305@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Kevin, Thanks for taking a look at this. On 23.08.2014 01:54, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Tomasz Figa 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 Figa >>>> Cc: Kukjin Kim >>> >>> Looks good to me, >>> >>> Acked-by: Kukjin Kim >>> >>> 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'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