[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] cpufreq: use generic cpufreq drivers for Exynos5250 platform
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> writes:

> On Monday, April 20, 2015 02:07:33 PM Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> writes:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This patch series removes the use of Exynos5250 specific support
>> > from exynos-cpufreq driver and enables the use of cpufreq-dt driver
>> > for this platform. The exynos-cpufreq driver itself is also removed
>> > as it is no longer used/needed after Exynos5250 support removal.
>> >
>> > This patch series has been tested on Exynos5250 based Arndale board.
>> >
>> > Depends on:
>> > - next-20150330 branch of linux-next kernel tree
>> > - "[PATCH 0/6] cpufreq: use generic cpufreq drivers for Exynos4210
>> > platform" [1]
>> > - "[PATCH 0/6] cpufreq: use generic cpufreq drivers for Exynos4x12
>> > platform" [2]
>> > - "[PATCH] cpufreq: exynos: remove dead ->need_apll_change method" [3]
>> Any chance you could prepare a branch with all the dependencies for easy
>> testing?
> All cpufreq changes with needed dependencies are now availble in
> repository and the branch is
> next-20150330-generic-cpufreq-exynos5420-5800-v2

Great, thanks.

>> Also, The previous version from Thomas was v12, and this one is neither
>> versioned nor has any reference to what may have changed since that
> Please note that Thomas' patchset was split on separate parts (this is
> part #3) and heavily modified so the previous versioning was dropped.
> The cover letter of part #1 ("[PATCH 0/6] cpufreq: use generic cpufreq
> drivers for Exynos4210 platform") contains detailed changelog on what has
> been changed since Thomas' original v12 patch series. Individual Thomas'
> patches which were modified by me also contain such information.
> Part #2 ("[PATCH 0/6] cpufreq: use generic cpufreq drivers for Exynos4x12
> platform") was entirely new code when compared to Thomas' v12 patchset so
> its cover letter doesn't contain such detailed changelog as part #1.
> The newly posted part #4 ("[PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: add generic cpufreq driver
> support for Exynos5250/5800 platforms"
> also contains the detailed changelog.
> However for part #3 (this one, "[PATCH 0/4] cpufreq: use generic cpufreq
> drivers for Exynos5250 platform") such summary changelog got missed for
> some reason. Here it is:
> - split Exynos5250 support from the original patch
> - moved E5250_CPU_DIV[0,1]() macros to clk-exynos5250.c
> - added CPU regulator supply property for Google Spring board
> - removed exynos-cpufreq driver entirely as it is no longer used/needed

Great, thanks for clarifying.

>> version. Also, on v12, I had several comments[1] and wonder if they've
>> been addressed.
> All issues previously reported should have been fixed. If you still see
> some problems please let me know.
> [ I see now that exynos5420-arndale-octa.dts, exynos5420-peach-pit.dts,
> exynos5420-smdk5420.dts and exynos5800-peach-pi.dts should also have
> been updated to contain CPU cluster regulator supply properties or else
> if the default vdd_arm/vdd_kfc regulator state is set to too low value
> there may be problems with stability when switching to higher than
> default frequencies. I have posted v2 version of patch #2/8 of part #4
> and pushed v2 combined branch on github. Sorry for the inconvenience. ]

I've now tested your v2 branch with the bL switcher disabled, CPUidle
enabled and CPUfreq enabled.

With the default governor set to performance, it fails to boot. The last
kernel messages on the console are:

[ 3.426021] cpu cpu0: bL_cpufreq_init: CPU 0 initialized
[ 3.431189] cpu cpu4: bL_cpufreq_init: CPU 4 initialized

However, with the default governor set to userspace it boots fine until
my userspace (ubuntu) tries to enable the ondemand governor, and then it

For it to boot, I have to disable the ondemand governor, and set the
default governor to userspace.

As I reported earlier on Thomas' series, I suspect this is related to
the fact that the higher OPPs aren't really functional without voltage
scaling also supported.

I'm also seeing the wait_until_divider_stable errors when switching
between the available A7 OPPs. I'd reported this one earlier as well,
along with the script to reproduce it.


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-22 02:01    [W:0.101 / U:3.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site