[PATCH v9 4/6] ARM: Exynos: switch to using generic cpufreq driver for Exynos4210/5250/5420
Tomasz Figa
tomasz.figa at gmail.com
Fri Aug 22 17:02:27 PDT 2014
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for taking a look at this.
On 23.08.2014 01:54, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa at 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 Figa<t.figa at samsung.com>
>>>> Cc: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim at samsung.com>
>>>
>>> Looks good to me,
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim at 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'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
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list