Hi Kevin, Tomasz, On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 have tested this patch series on SMDK5420 with cpuidle (with and without b.L switcher enabled). As of now voltage scaling support is not there in generic big-little cpufreq driver (arm_big_little.c). Hence need to tie arm and kfc voltages to highest level for testing. Without this change stability issues are there, but with this change everything is stable. > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel regards, Chander -- 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
 |