[PATCH 2a/5] Remove unsafe clock values from omap1_defconfig
jkrzyszt at tis.icnet.pl
Thu Dec 1 04:54:09 EST 2011
I've unintentionally answered off-line, sorry, re-adding all Cc:'s.
On Thursday 01 of December 2011 at 03:27:51, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Janusz Krzysztofik <jkrzyszt at tis.icnet.pl> [111130 17:40]:
> > On Wednesday 30 of November 2011 at 23:32:42, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you please split your series into two: Fix(es) for the -rc cycle,
> > > then patches that can be left for the next merge window.
> > From my point of view, all 5 are important fixes. Please decide
> > yourself, having the following information provided:
> > 1/5: inspired by in-line comments about running from sram requirement
> > (works without this one for me),
> > 2/5: without this one, system clock runs way too fast if dpll1 is
> > reprogrammed to default rate,
> > 3/5: without this one, all boards with bootloaders not setting rate
> > correctly, like Amstrad Delta, will run at default rate, despite
> > any .config selections, no matter if omap1_defconfig or custom,
> > 2a/5: required by 3/5,
> > 5/5: without this one, BogoMIPS is not updated after dpll1 reprogramme,
> > breaking omap_keypad at least.
> > and please let me know which I should resend as fixes and which not.
> How about 2 and 5 as fixes during the -rc, then the rest for the
> merge window? That is assuming that those are enough for you to have
> things mostly working.
If you still ask me for my opinion: with patch 3/5 omitted, then not
being able to run at any other frequency than 60 MHz instead of usual
150 since the board support was introduced first, isn't this a
regression? Having a choice of upgrading to 3.2 and running my
application on not very powerfull board at 60 MHz, or keep running 3.1
at 150, guess what I chose? If I were a distro kernel package
maintainer, guess what I would chose?
> It seems that we've had the issue of not actually changing the rate
> for a while, right?
This was not an issue before dpll1 reprogramming has been moved out from
omap1_clk_init(), as an rc fix to another bug introduced in 3.2. Perhaps
we should rather think of reverting a few commits which caused all these
problems if fixing them all during rc cycle seems not possible? I
haven't bisected them yet, rather concentrated on providing fixes, but I
can still try to do it, starting back from the original issue
(http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg60052.html), if so decided.
> If that's the case, I'd rather not start messing
> with that during the -rc cycle.
I don't feel like a person who makes the final decision.
Anyway, did you mean resending those 2/5 and 5/5 without any changes,
only renumbered as 1/2 and 2/2?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel