Hi Tomasz,

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for taking a look at this.

On 23.08.2014 01:54, Kevin Hilman wrote:

quoted

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...

quoted

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.

quoted

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 at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group