From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 4/6] ARM: Exynos: switch to using generic cpufreq driver for Exynos4210/5250/5420 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 19:28:33 +0000 Message-ID: <546CEF61.4050105@arm.com> References: <1413805281-6269-1-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <1413805281-6269-2-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <1413805281-6269-3-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <1413805281-6269-4-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <1413805281-6269-5-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1413805281-6269-5-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Abraham , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Cc: Sudeep Holla , "l.majewski@samsung.com" , "kgene.kim@samsung.com" , "mturquette@linaro.org" , "heiko@sntech.de" , "viresh.kumar@linaro.org" , "tomasz.figa@gmail.com" , "cw00.choi@samsung.com" , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 20/10/14 12:41, Thomas Abraham wrote: > The new CPU clock type allows the use of generic CPUfreq drivers. So for > Exynos4210/5250, switch to using generic cpufreq driver. For Exynos5420, > which did not have CPUfreq driver support, enable the use of generic > CPUfreq driver. > > Suggested-by: Tomasz Figa > Cc: Kukjin Kim > Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham > Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa > Tested-by: Javier Martinez Canillas > Tested-by: Chander Kashyap > --- > arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > index 6b283eb..a1be294 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > @@ -282,6 +282,28 @@ static void __init exynos_init_irq(void) > exynos_map_pmu(); > } > > +static const struct of_device_id exynos_cpufreq_matches[] = { > + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5420", .data = "arm-bL-cpufreq-dt" }, Sorry for raising this issue always with Exynos cpufreq drivers. IMO the bindings for "arm-bL-cpufreq-dt" is broken. Currently no one is using it and it's better to fix it before we have a real user of it. If you look at the binding document for it[1], it has a fixme which shouldn't have been there at first place. It assumes the ordering of CPU's specified in the DT and the logical index allocation to them. It even breaks for hotplug especially if you hotplug-in back in different order. We can work around that probably, but it's better to fix the binding. I failed to grab much attention in my previous attempts to address this[2]. Viresh also started a discussion more recently[3]. Regards, Sudeep [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/arm_big_little_dt.txt [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg303977.html [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/25/152 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 19:28:33 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v11 4/6] ARM: Exynos: switch to using generic cpufreq driver for Exynos4210/5250/5420 In-Reply-To: <1413805281-6269-5-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> References: <1413805281-6269-1-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <1413805281-6269-2-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <1413805281-6269-3-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <1413805281-6269-4-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <1413805281-6269-5-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> Message-ID: <546CEF61.4050105@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 20/10/14 12:41, Thomas Abraham wrote: > The new CPU clock type allows the use of generic CPUfreq drivers. So for > Exynos4210/5250, switch to using generic cpufreq driver. For Exynos5420, > which did not have CPUfreq driver support, enable the use of generic > CPUfreq driver. > > Suggested-by: Tomasz Figa > Cc: Kukjin Kim > Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham > Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa > Tested-by: Javier Martinez Canillas > Tested-by: Chander Kashyap > --- > arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > index 6b283eb..a1be294 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > @@ -282,6 +282,28 @@ static void __init exynos_init_irq(void) > exynos_map_pmu(); > } > > +static const struct of_device_id exynos_cpufreq_matches[] = { > + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5420", .data = "arm-bL-cpufreq-dt" }, Sorry for raising this issue always with Exynos cpufreq drivers. IMO the bindings for "arm-bL-cpufreq-dt" is broken. Currently no one is using it and it's better to fix it before we have a real user of it. If you look at the binding document for it[1], it has a fixme which shouldn't have been there at first place. It assumes the ordering of CPU's specified in the DT and the logical index allocation to them. It even breaks for hotplug especially if you hotplug-in back in different order. We can work around that probably, but it's better to fix the binding. I failed to grab much attention in my previous attempts to address this[2]. Viresh also started a discussion more recently[3]. Regards, Sudeep [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/arm_big_little_dt.txt [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg303977.html [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/25/152