Hi Kevin,

Thanks for taking a look at this.

On 23.08.2014 01:54, Kevin Hilman wrote:

Tomasz Figa [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Kukjin,

On 31.07.2014 20:32, Kukjin Kim wrote:

quoted

On 07/30/14 17:07, Thomas Abraham wrote:

quoted

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<redacted>
Cc: Kukjin Kim<redacted>

Looks good to me,

Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <redacted>

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