[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC v2 0/5] Per-user clock constraints
On 07/09/2014 10:16 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Tomeu,
> On 03.07.2014 16:38, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> Hello,
>> here is another round for commenting, not very different from the first one.
>> Something I forgot to mention before is that the function rename was performed
>> by the scripts in:
>> As before, I have only checked that drivers/clk/ builds with allyesconfig, and
>> that a kernel can be built for tegra_defconfig.
> This is quite an interesting series. I have reviewed two of five patches
> and have plans to look at remaining ones, however here are few general
> issues I'd like to raise:
> - somehow I don't see patch 2/5 on LAKML. Too big?

Yes, I'm not sure what I can do about that, but it's only automated
function renaming. I'm going to send v3 in a bit and will CC you.

> - I see the series changing particular clock drivers. A good practice
> would be to Cc respective driver maintainers to take a look at those
> changes.

Now that I'm more confident about this approach, for the next version
I'm going to CC them as well.

> - please make sure that all the patches don't have checkpatch errors or
> significant warnings.


> Will try (myself or by asking someone else) to do some testing on
> Samsung platforms.

That will be great, thanks. One scenario I'm looking forward to test
this with is low system load while the display is being updated often at
a high resolution.

I would expect to see that the Exynos5 devfreq driver sets a relatively
low floor frequency, and the DC driver overrides that by setting a
higher floor, based on the calculated bandwidth that will be required to
move pixels around.



> Best regards,
> Tomasz

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-10 10:41    [W:0.348 / U:3.736 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site