Re: [PATCHv3 0/7] cpufreq support for Marvell Armada XP

Jason Cooper
2014-07-23T11:40:01Z

Thomas,

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 01:19:30PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Viresh, Jason,
>
> So, what do we do with this patch series, which depends on the
> cpufreq-generic driver? Has there been any solution found for 3.17 ?
>
> Jason, in any case, I'd like the following patches to be merged for
> 3.17, regardless of what happens with the cpufreq driver:
>
> ARM: mvebu: ensure CPU clocks are enabled
> ARM: mvebu: extend PMSU code to support dynamic frequency scaling
> clk: mvebu: extend clk-cpu for dynamic frequency scaling

I just sent the pull for these three yesterday.

> One patch should be split:
>
> ARM: mvebu: update Armada XP DT for dynamic frequency scaling
>
> -> In this patch, the addition of clock-latency is related to the
> cpufreq generic DT binding, so I think we shouldn't merge that. But
> on the other hand, this patch also adds the new registers for the
> Armada XP CPU clock, which is used by "clk: mvebu: extend clk-cpu
> for dynamic frequency scaling".

This was a part of one of the previous DT pull requests and is already
in arm-soc.

> The patch:
>
> ARM: mvebu: allow enabling of cpufreq on Armada XP
>
> can be dropped, since ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ has been removed.

Yup, did that when Paul raised the issue.

> The other patches are defconfig changes, which are meaningless without
> the cpufreq-generic driver.

Already pushed to arm-soc.

> Jason, what do you think about me sending a new version of the patch
> series, which will have two clearly separated set of patches:
>
> 1/ A first set of patches that can be applied regardless of what
> happens on the cpufreq driver side. Getting it merged will not
> bring cpufreq support, but it will add the foundations needed to
> support it.
>
> 2/ A second set of patches that use the cpufreq-generic driver, which
> might get applied of the cpufreq maintainers find a solution in
> time for 3.17. If not, then I'll re-adapt them for 3.18.

It sounds like the only patch in group 2 would be the DT change, which
has already been taken.

> What do you think?

Let's wait and see what -rc1 looks like and take action based on that.

thx,

Jason.