cpufreq on PandaBoard

cpufreq on PandaBoard

[Ben Gamari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 828 bytes --]


Booting a PandaBoard with a recent kernel and devicetree appears to be a
rather messy process. There are dozens of devicetree-related warnings
spewed on boot (many pertaining to missing regulators). At the moment,
however, I'm most interested in this,

    cpufreq-cpu0 cpufreq-cpu0.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT
    cpu cpu0: dummy supplies not allowed
    cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 regulator: -19
    cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 clock: -2
    cpufreq-cpu0: probe of cpufreq-cpu0.0 failed with error -2

What is the status of cpufreq on the PandaBoard? Is this expected to
work?

More generally, if one wants a fairly recent kernel supporting the
PandaBoard's hardware what kernel tree should be used? Is mainline not
yet appropriate? Is linux-next preferred? Perhaps a ti-maintained tree?

Cheers,

- Ben

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 489 bytes --]

cpufreq on PandaBoard

[Ben Gamari]

Booting a PandaBoard with a recent kernel and devicetree appears to be a
rather messy process. There are dozens of devicetree-related warnings
spewed on boot (many pertaining to missing regulators). At the moment,
however, I'm most interested in this,

    cpufreq-cpu0 cpufreq-cpu0.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT
    cpu cpu0: dummy supplies not allowed
    cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 regulator: -19
    cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 clock: -2
    cpufreq-cpu0: probe of cpufreq-cpu0.0 failed with error -2

What is the status of cpufreq on the PandaBoard? Is this expected to
work?

More generally, if one wants a fairly recent kernel supporting the
PandaBoard's hardware what kernel tree should be used? Is mainline not
yet appropriate? Is linux-next preferred? Perhaps a ti-maintained tree?

Cheers,

- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20131119/97cdc213/attachment.sig>

Re: cpufreq on PandaBoard

[Nishanth Menon]

On 11/19/2013 08:59 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
> 
> Booting a PandaBoard with a recent kernel and devicetree appears to be a
> rather messy process. There are dozens of devicetree-related warnings
> spewed on boot (many pertaining to missing regulators). At the moment,
> however, I'm most interested in this,
> 
>     cpufreq-cpu0 cpufreq-cpu0.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT
>     cpu cpu0: dummy supplies not allowed
>     cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 regulator: -19
>     cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 clock: -2
>     cpufreq-cpu0: probe of cpufreq-cpu0.0 failed with error -2
> 
> What is the status of cpufreq on the PandaBoard? Is this expected to
> work?
> 
> More generally, if one wants a fairly recent kernel supporting the
> PandaBoard's hardware what kernel tree should be used? Is mainline not
> yet appropriate? Is linux-next preferred? Perhaps a ti-maintained tree?
for upstream: Wait for the clock nodes to get merged.. we are at v9 of
discussion thread here[1].

for ti-maintained tree, you need to talk to TI support folks for
appropriate kernel for your product line.

[1] http://marc.info/?t=138271672500002&r=1&w=2
-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon

cpufreq on PandaBoard

[Nishanth Menon]

On 11/19/2013 08:59 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
> 
> Booting a PandaBoard with a recent kernel and devicetree appears to be a
> rather messy process. There are dozens of devicetree-related warnings
> spewed on boot (many pertaining to missing regulators). At the moment,
> however, I'm most interested in this,
> 
>     cpufreq-cpu0 cpufreq-cpu0.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT
>     cpu cpu0: dummy supplies not allowed
>     cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 regulator: -19
>     cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 clock: -2
>     cpufreq-cpu0: probe of cpufreq-cpu0.0 failed with error -2
> 
> What is the status of cpufreq on the PandaBoard? Is this expected to
> work?
> 
> More generally, if one wants a fairly recent kernel supporting the
> PandaBoard's hardware what kernel tree should be used? Is mainline not
> yet appropriate? Is linux-next preferred? Perhaps a ti-maintained tree?
for upstream: Wait for the clock nodes to get merged.. we are at v9 of
discussion thread here[1].

for ti-maintained tree, you need to talk to TI support folks for
appropriate kernel for your product line.

[1] http://marc.info/?t=138271672500002&r=1&w=2
-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon

Re: cpufreq on PandaBoard

[Ben Gamari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1861 bytes --]

Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> writes:

> On 11/19/2013 08:59 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
>> 
>> Booting a PandaBoard with a recent kernel and devicetree appears to be a
>> rather messy process. There are dozens of devicetree-related warnings
>> spewed on boot (many pertaining to missing regulators). At the moment,
>> however, I'm most interested in this,
>> 
>>     cpufreq-cpu0 cpufreq-cpu0.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT
>>     cpu cpu0: dummy supplies not allowed
>>     cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 regulator: -19
>>     cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 clock: -2
>>     cpufreq-cpu0: probe of cpufreq-cpu0.0 failed with error -2
>> 
>> What is the status of cpufreq on the PandaBoard? Is this expected to
>> work?
>> 
>> More generally, if one wants a fairly recent kernel supporting the
>> PandaBoard's hardware what kernel tree should be used? Is mainline not
>> yet appropriate? Is linux-next preferred? Perhaps a ti-maintained tree?
> 
> for upstream: Wait for the clock nodes to get merged.. we are at v9 of
> discussion thread here[1].
>
I take it that the clock node work does not itself fix cpufreq? I've
built the 3.12-dt-clks-v10-dev branch. On the bright side, it boots and
appears to run just fine. Unfortunately, there isn't even a mention of
cpufreq in the boot log.

I've seen your Google+ post[1] from May enumerating the steps to having
working DVFS. It would be useful to post an update showing what has been
merged, what is waiting for merge, and what is still in progress.

> for ti-maintained tree, you need to talk to TI support folks for
> appropriate kernel for your product line.
>
I wasn't asking for official support, just wondering where work is
currently happening.

Thanks for your help.

Cheers,

- Ben


[1] https://plus.google.com/112464029509057661457/posts/gvyZQcNieoq

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 489 bytes --]

cpufreq on PandaBoard

[Ben Gamari]

Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> writes:

> On 11/19/2013 08:59 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
>> 
>> Booting a PandaBoard with a recent kernel and devicetree appears to be a
>> rather messy process. There are dozens of devicetree-related warnings
>> spewed on boot (many pertaining to missing regulators). At the moment,
>> however, I'm most interested in this,
>> 
>>     cpufreq-cpu0 cpufreq-cpu0.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT
>>     cpu cpu0: dummy supplies not allowed
>>     cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 regulator: -19
>>     cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 clock: -2
>>     cpufreq-cpu0: probe of cpufreq-cpu0.0 failed with error -2
>> 
>> What is the status of cpufreq on the PandaBoard? Is this expected to
>> work?
>> 
>> More generally, if one wants a fairly recent kernel supporting the
>> PandaBoard's hardware what kernel tree should be used? Is mainline not
>> yet appropriate? Is linux-next preferred? Perhaps a ti-maintained tree?
> 
> for upstream: Wait for the clock nodes to get merged.. we are at v9 of
> discussion thread here[1].
>
I take it that the clock node work does not itself fix cpufreq? I've
built the 3.12-dt-clks-v10-dev branch. On the bright side, it boots and
appears to run just fine. Unfortunately, there isn't even a mention of
cpufreq in the boot log.

I've seen your Google+ post[1] from May enumerating the steps to having
working DVFS. It would be useful to post an update showing what has been
merged, what is waiting for merge, and what is still in progress.

> for ti-maintained tree, you need to talk to TI support folks for
> appropriate kernel for your product line.
>
I wasn't asking for official support, just wondering where work is
currently happening.

Thanks for your help.

Cheers,

- Ben


[1] https://plus.google.com/112464029509057661457/posts/gvyZQcNieoq
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20131119/7e86274a/attachment.sig>

Re: cpufreq on PandaBoard

[Nishanth Menon]

On 11/19/2013 11:18 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
> Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> writes:
> 
>> On 11/19/2013 08:59 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
>>>
>>> Booting a PandaBoard with a recent kernel and devicetree appears to be a
>>> rather messy process. There are dozens of devicetree-related warnings
>>> spewed on boot (many pertaining to missing regulators). At the moment,
>>> however, I'm most interested in this,
>>>
>>>     cpufreq-cpu0 cpufreq-cpu0.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT
>>>     cpu cpu0: dummy supplies not allowed
>>>     cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 regulator: -19
>>>     cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 clock: -2
>>>     cpufreq-cpu0: probe of cpufreq-cpu0.0 failed with error -2
>>>
>>> What is the status of cpufreq on the PandaBoard? Is this expected to
>>> work?
>>>
>>> More generally, if one wants a fairly recent kernel supporting the
>>> PandaBoard's hardware what kernel tree should be used? Is mainline not
>>> yet appropriate? Is linux-next preferred? Perhaps a ti-maintained tree?
>>
>> for upstream: Wait for the clock nodes to get merged.. we are at v9 of
>> discussion thread here[1].
>>
> I take it that the clock node work does not itself fix cpufreq? I've
> built the 3.12-dt-clks-v10-dev branch. On the bright side, it boots and
> appears to run just fine. Unfortunately, there isn't even a mention of
> cpufreq in the boot log.

You are probably picking up a branch that is yet to be posted :)...
and I assume you know the risk of in-development patches ;) - the
branch looks to introduce purely clock nodes which patch [2] adds on
to and makes cpufreq work as a start..


> 
> I've seen your Google+ post[1] from May enumerating the steps to having
> working DVFS. It would be useful to post an update showing what has been
> merged, what is waiting for merge, and what is still in progress.

We are still at "step 1 - get clock nodes" :(... and no, situation has
not improved since May 2013 when I originally posted that G+ comment
(and not because we have not been trying..).

> 
>> for ti-maintained tree, you need to talk to TI support folks for
>> appropriate kernel for your product line.
>>
> I wasn't asking for official support, just wondering where work is
> currently happening.

they are happening here in linux-omap mailing list.. just that the
changes are pretty fundamental and a lot of discussions have been
taking place
> 
> Thanks for your help.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> - Ben
> 
> 
> [1] https://plus.google.com/112464029509057661457/posts/gvyZQcNieoq
> 
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=138193821608515&w=2

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon

cpufreq on PandaBoard

[Nishanth Menon]

On 11/19/2013 11:18 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
> Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> writes:
> 
>> On 11/19/2013 08:59 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
>>>
>>> Booting a PandaBoard with a recent kernel and devicetree appears to be a
>>> rather messy process. There are dozens of devicetree-related warnings
>>> spewed on boot (many pertaining to missing regulators). At the moment,
>>> however, I'm most interested in this,
>>>
>>>     cpufreq-cpu0 cpufreq-cpu0.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT
>>>     cpu cpu0: dummy supplies not allowed
>>>     cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 regulator: -19
>>>     cpufreq_cpu0: failed to get cpu0 clock: -2
>>>     cpufreq-cpu0: probe of cpufreq-cpu0.0 failed with error -2
>>>
>>> What is the status of cpufreq on the PandaBoard? Is this expected to
>>> work?
>>>
>>> More generally, if one wants a fairly recent kernel supporting the
>>> PandaBoard's hardware what kernel tree should be used? Is mainline not
>>> yet appropriate? Is linux-next preferred? Perhaps a ti-maintained tree?
>>
>> for upstream: Wait for the clock nodes to get merged.. we are at v9 of
>> discussion thread here[1].
>>
> I take it that the clock node work does not itself fix cpufreq? I've
> built the 3.12-dt-clks-v10-dev branch. On the bright side, it boots and
> appears to run just fine. Unfortunately, there isn't even a mention of
> cpufreq in the boot log.

You are probably picking up a branch that is yet to be posted :)...
and I assume you know the risk of in-development patches ;) - the
branch looks to introduce purely clock nodes which patch [2] adds on
to and makes cpufreq work as a start..


> 
> I've seen your Google+ post[1] from May enumerating the steps to having
> working DVFS. It would be useful to post an update showing what has been
> merged, what is waiting for merge, and what is still in progress.

We are still at "step 1 - get clock nodes" :(... and no, situation has
not improved since May 2013 when I originally posted that G+ comment
(and not because we have not been trying..).

> 
>> for ti-maintained tree, you need to talk to TI support folks for
>> appropriate kernel for your product line.
>>
> I wasn't asking for official support, just wondering where work is
> currently happening.

they are happening here in linux-omap mailing list.. just that the
changes are pretty fundamental and a lot of discussions have been
taking place
> 
> Thanks for your help.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> - Ben
> 
> 
> [1] https://plus.google.com/112464029509057661457/posts/gvyZQcNieoq
> 
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=138193821608515&w=2

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon

Re: cpufreq on PandaBoard

[Ben Gamari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1394 bytes --]

Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> writes:

> On 11/19/2013 11:18 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
>> 
>> I take it that the clock node work does not itself fix cpufreq? I've
>> built the 3.12-dt-clks-v10-dev branch. On the bright side, it boots and
>> appears to run just fine. Unfortunately, there isn't even a mention of
>> cpufreq in the boot log.
>
> You are probably picking up a branch that is yet to be posted :)...
> and I assume you know the risk of in-development patches ;)
> 
The house hasn't burned down yet... ;)

> - the branch looks to introduce purely clock nodes which patch [2]
> adds on to and makes cpufreq work as a start..
>
Thanks!

>> 
>> I've seen your Google+ post[1] from May enumerating the steps to having
>> working DVFS. It would be useful to post an update showing what has been
>> merged, what is waiting for merge, and what is still in progress.
>
> We are still at "step 1 - get clock nodes" :(... and no, situation has
> not improved since May 2013 when I originally posted that G+ comment
> (and not because we have not been trying..).
>
Ouch. Good luck! 

>> I wasn't asking for official support, just wondering where work is
>> currently happening.
>
> they are happening here in linux-omap mailing list.. just that the
> changes are pretty fundamental and a lot of discussions have been
> taking place
> 
Thanks!

Cheers,

- Ben

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 489 bytes --]

cpufreq on PandaBoard

[Ben Gamari]

Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> writes:

> On 11/19/2013 11:18 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
>> 
>> I take it that the clock node work does not itself fix cpufreq? I've
>> built the 3.12-dt-clks-v10-dev branch. On the bright side, it boots and
>> appears to run just fine. Unfortunately, there isn't even a mention of
>> cpufreq in the boot log.
>
> You are probably picking up a branch that is yet to be posted :)...
> and I assume you know the risk of in-development patches ;)
> 
The house hasn't burned down yet... ;)

> - the branch looks to introduce purely clock nodes which patch [2]
> adds on to and makes cpufreq work as a start..
>
Thanks!

>> 
>> I've seen your Google+ post[1] from May enumerating the steps to having
>> working DVFS. It would be useful to post an update showing what has been
>> merged, what is waiting for merge, and what is still in progress.
>
> We are still at "step 1 - get clock nodes" :(... and no, situation has
> not improved since May 2013 when I originally posted that G+ comment
> (and not because we have not been trying..).
>
Ouch. Good luck! 

>> I wasn't asking for official support, just wondering where work is
>> currently happening.
>
> they are happening here in linux-omap mailing list.. just that the
> changes are pretty fundamental and a lot of discussions have been
> taking place
> 
Thanks!

Cheers,

- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20131119/f655addd/attachment.sig>