W dniu 09.02.2017 o 11:52, Sudeep Holla pisze:

On 08/02/17 19:45, Kevin Hilman wrote:

quoted

Sudeep Holla [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 04/02/17 21:03, Heiner Kallweit wrote:

quoted

Introduce an optional property "clock-max-frequency" for SCPI DVFS
clocks. All frequencies for the respective clock exceeding this
threshold will be ignored.

This is useful on systems where the firmware offers too optimistic
clock rates causing instabilities and crashes.

It clearly means the firmware/hardware(IOW platform) was not tested
correctly before firmware advertised the OPPs. It needs to fixed in the
firmware. The approach should be advertise the known minimal set working
rather than the set for which hardware was designed.

That's the whole reason while these are kept in firmware so the OS need
not worry about such details.

So NACK, go fix the firmware 

Sorry, but "go fix the firmware" is not an option for most users of
these boards.

I knew this was coming :). I just wanted to shout at vendors who are not
validating their firmware. Sometimes I feel it's better have platform
driver and drive everything from Linux and don't use buggy firmware at
all instead of adding tons of workaround. It defeats the whole purpose
of having the firmware.

Well, at least in the case of odroid c2 from hardkernel, I believe those
unstable frequencies are supported intentionally. The wiki of the board
lists them explicitly, and says when they are stable.
So if that was intentional, then a frequency capping set by default
would be needed, it can be lifted by a specific user if he wants. Unless
hk should disable that "feature" instead.

quoted

Even if the source were provided for the firmware (it's not), it
usually needs signing by the vendor, and we know how likely that will
be provided by the vendors.

I agree, but the main reason for raising my voice is to communicate the
message to those vendors. Blindly accepting whatever they give is also
not a good practice.

quoted

Firmware will will always be buggy and/or broken and we will be
stuck with it.  IMO, not allowing the kernel to work around broken 
firmware takes a very idealistic view of firmware, and is not based
on historical reality with ARM SoC vendors.

Yes but things should start to improve somewhere sometime. It really
stupid to keep working around everything vendor screws up giving them no
incentive to get things right the next time. We need to accept the fact
that firmware will do more as the complex systems evolve and that won't
go away. It's time we make them aware of that and ensure they take
necessary steps to fix it for future platforms.

quoted

quoted

or disable it completely and be happy with the boot frequency.

That's an awful solution also, when we know that most of the
frequencies work just fine.

OK, I understand the concern. I will look into the patches.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 525 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20170209/062bd2ae/attachment-0001.sig>