Hi Tomasz, > Hi Kevin, > > Thanks for taking a look at this. > > On 23.08.2014 01:54, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Cc: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Looks good to me, > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> 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. It is a huge step forward - to be honest it is a serious rework of cpufreq subsystem for Exynos 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). > Since we have missed the merge window with this code, I can declare that I will provide code, which means that I will do the cleanup for excluded from this series Exynos4 SoCs, to test the cpufreq-cpu0. However, I'm concerned with Exynos4412, which supports BOOST. It might not be trivial to provide support for it. I think, that we shall not drop behind any functionality during clean up. > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel -- Best regards, Lukasz Majewski Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |