From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: tests: Providing cpufreq regression test Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:02:28 +0200 Message-ID: <20140723150228.GE2856@lunn.ch> References: <1405678985-21677-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com> <1405926154-27214-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com> <20140723093824.5e51918f@amdc2363> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Lukasz Majewski , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Abraham , Linux PM list , Lukasz Majewski , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "thomas.ab@samsung.com" , Sachin Kamat , Tomasz Figa , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Marek Szyprowski On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 02:19:54PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 23 July 2014 13:08, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > > Do you want to say that we have enough tests and we don't need more ? > > No. We don't have any tests at all :) Not really true. I've found bugs triggering opps using cpufreq-bench. http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=138165517321579&w=2 and i hope you learned from that experience and run this tool when making changes to the core. There is an old writeup of cpufreq-bench here: https://lwn.net/Articles/339862/ and the code itself is in the mainline tree, tools/power/cpupower/bench Andrew