[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2a/5] Remove unsafe clock values from omap1_defconfig
    I've unintentionally answered off-line, sorry, re-adding all Cc:'s.

    On Thursday 01 of December 2011 at 03:27:51, Tony Lindgren wrote:
    > * Janusz Krzysztofik <> [111130 17:40]:
    > > On Wednesday 30 of November 2011 at 23:32:42, Tony Lindgren wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Can you please split your series into two: Fix(es) for the -rc cycle,
    > > > then patches that can be left for the next merge window.
    > >
    > > From my point of view, all 5 are important fixes. Please decide
    > > yourself, having the following information provided:
    > >
    > > 1/5: inspired by in-line comments about running from sram requirement
    > > (works without this one for me),
    > >
    > > 2/5: without this one, system clock runs way too fast if dpll1 is
    > > reprogrammed to default rate,
    > >
    > > 3/5: without this one, all boards with bootloaders not setting rate
    > > correctly, like Amstrad Delta, will run at default rate, despite
    > > any .config selections, no matter if omap1_defconfig or custom,
    > >
    > > 2a/5: required by 3/5,
    > >
    > > 5/5: without this one, BogoMIPS is not updated after dpll1 reprogramme,
    > > breaking omap_keypad at least.
    > >
    > > and please let me know which I should resend as fixes and which not.
    > How about 2 and 5 as fixes during the -rc, then the rest for the
    > merge window? That is assuming that those are enough for you to have
    > things mostly working.

    If you still ask me for my opinion: with patch 3/5 omitted, then not
    being able to run at any other frequency than 60 MHz instead of usual
    150 since the board support was introduced first, isn't this a
    regression? Having a choice of upgrading to 3.2 and running my
    application on not very powerfull board at 60 MHz, or keep running 3.1
    at 150, guess what I chose? If I were a distro kernel package
    maintainer, guess what I would chose?

    > It seems that we've had the issue of not actually changing the rate
    > for a while, right?

    This was not an issue before dpll1 reprogramming has been moved out from
    omap1_clk_init(), as an rc fix to another bug introduced in 3.2. Perhaps
    we should rather think of reverting a few commits which caused all these
    problems if fixing them all during rc cycle seems not possible? I
    haven't bisected them yet, rather concentrated on providing fixes, but I
    can still try to do it, starting back from the original issue
    (, if so decided.

    > If that's the case, I'd rather not start messing
    > with that during the -rc cycle.
    > Regards,
    > Tony

    I don't feel like a person who makes the final decision.

    Anyway, did you mean resending those 2/5 and 5/5 without any changes,
    only renumbered as 1/2 and 2/2?


     \ /
      Last update: 2011-12-01 10:57    [W:0.030 / U:0.492 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site