[PATCH V5 4/7] cpufreq: add clk-reg cpufreq driver
shawn.guo at freescale.com
Tue Dec 27 21:01:13 EST 2011
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 09:24:05AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > Have you tried to pass this param from kernel cmdline? What's the
> > syntax if we want to pass a 800 MHz max_freq?
Thanks. I was mistaken on the module name.
> > ### cpufreq_05:
> > ### test 'ondemand' and 'conservative' trigger correctly the configuration directory
> > ### https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/PowerManagement/Doc/QA/Scripts#cpufreq_05
> > ###
> > cpufreq_05.0: checking 'ondemand' directory exists... pass
> > cpufreq_05.1: checking 'conservative' directory exists... pass
> > cpufreq_05.2: checking 'ondemand' directory is not there... pass
> > cpufreq_05.3: checking 'conservative' directory is not there... pass
> > cpufreq_05.4: checking 'ondemand' directory exists... fail
> > cpufreq_05.5: checking 'conservative' directory exists... pass
> I past fail part script here:
> switch_ondemand cpu0
> switch_conservative cpu1
> check "'ondemand' directory exists" "test -d $CPU_PATH/cpufreq/ondemand"
> check "'conservative' directory exists" "test -d $CPU_PATH/cpufreq/conservative"
> This driver assume all cpu cores to share the same freq and voltage. The affected
> cpu is all other cpus. They also share one single governor. The test case does not
> suit this driver and not for most arm multi-core cpus I guess.
Then this is the feedback that Linaro PMWG wants to have, I guess.
Here is my tag on this patch.
Acked-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo at linaro.org>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel