| Message ID | 1406707663-16656-5-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 07/30/14 17:07, 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<t.figa@samsung.com> > Cc: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com> Looks good to me, Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> BTW, who will handle this series? I hope see this series in 3.17. - Kukjin > Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham<thomas.ab@samsung.com> > Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa<t.figa@samsung.com> > --- > arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > index 493dbc2..e61bb36 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > @@ -281,6 +281,28 @@ 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" }, > + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5250", .data = "cpufreq-cpu0" }, > + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos4210", .data = "cpufreq-cpu0" }, > + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5440", .data = "exynos5440-cpufreq" }, > + { /* sentinel */ } > +}; > + > +static void __init exynos_cpufreq_init(void) > +{ > + struct device_node *root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); > + const struct of_device_id *match; > + > + match = of_match_node(exynos_cpufreq_matches, root); > + if (!match) { > + platform_device_register_simple("exynos-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0); > + return; > + } > + > + platform_device_register_simple(match->data, -1, NULL, 0); > +} > + > static void __init exynos_dt_machine_init(void) > { > struct device_node *i2c_np; > @@ -320,7 +342,7 @@ static void __init exynos_dt_machine_init(void) > of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5250")) > platform_device_register(&exynos_cpuidle); > > - platform_device_register_simple("exynos-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0); > + exynos_cpufreq_init(); > > of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL); > }
Kukjin, On 31.07.2014 20:32, Kukjin Kim wrote: > On 07/30/14 17:07, 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<t.figa@samsung.com> >> Cc: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com> > > Looks good to me, > > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> > > BTW, who will handle this series? I hope see this series in 3.17. This series consists mostly of clock changes and it likely depends on patches already in my for-next, so I would be inclined toward taking it through samsung-clk tree. However, for this I would need Acks for patch 5/6 from Viresh and for patches [1] and [2] (which are dependencies of this series) from you. I also need to make sure that the two mentioned patches don't have any dependencies already in your tree. [1] ARM: dts: add CPU nodes for Exynos4 SoCs - https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/315 [2] ARM: dts: smdk5250: Specify MAX77686 pmic interrupt - http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg351134.html Best regards, Tomasz
On 31.07.2014 20:40, Tomasz Figa wrote: > Kukjin, > > On 31.07.2014 20:32, Kukjin Kim wrote: >> On 07/30/14 17:07, 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<t.figa@samsung.com> >>> Cc: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com> >> >> Looks good to me, >> >> Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> >> >> BTW, who will handle this series? I hope see this series in 3.17. > > This series consists mostly of clock changes and it likely depends on > patches already in my for-next, so I would be inclined toward taking it > through samsung-clk tree. However, for this I would need Acks for patch > 5/6 from Viresh and for patches [1] and [2] (which are dependencies of > this series) from you. I also need to make sure that the two mentioned > patches don't have any dependencies already in your tree. > > [1] ARM: dts: add CPU nodes for Exynos4 SoCs > - https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/315 > [2] ARM: dts: smdk5250: Specify MAX77686 pmic interrupt > - http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg351134.html Aha, I'm not quite sure we really want to hurry with this series for 3.17. I'd prefer it to be picked up early after 3.17-rc1 shows up to sit in linux-next for a while an be thoroughly tested on a number of boards. This would also have the advantage of having the two patches mentioned above already merged. Best regards, Tomasz
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 31.07.2014 20:40, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> Kukjin, >> >> On 31.07.2014 20:32, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>> On 07/30/14 17:07, 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<t.figa@samsung.com> >>>> Cc: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com> >>> >>> Looks good to me, >>> >>> Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> >>> >>> BTW, who will handle this series? I hope see this series in 3.17. >> >> This series consists mostly of clock changes and it likely depends on >> patches already in my for-next, so I would be inclined toward taking it >> through samsung-clk tree. However, for this I would need Acks for patch >> 5/6 from Viresh and for patches [1] and [2] (which are dependencies of >> this series) from you. I also need to make sure that the two mentioned >> patches don't have any dependencies already in your tree. >> >> [1] ARM: dts: add CPU nodes for Exynos4 SoCs >> - https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/315 >> [2] ARM: dts: smdk5250: Specify MAX77686 pmic interrupt >> - http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg351134.html > > Aha, I'm not quite sure we really want to hurry with this series for > 3.17. I'd prefer it to be picked up early after 3.17-rc1 shows up to sit > in linux-next for a while an be thoroughly tested on a number of boards. The v9 revision of this series has completed about 2 days of testing now on 4210/5250/5420 boards. I will let it run for few more days. For v8 and previous versions, the tests had completed 3 or more days. So I really don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with this series. It would be nice to have this series merged and we start migrating other Exynos based boards to use generic cpufreq drivers. Thanks, Thomas. > > This would also have the advantage of having the two patches mentioned > above already merged. > > Best regards, > Tomasz > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On 31.07.2014 21:25, Thomas Abraham wrote: > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 31.07.2014 20:40, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>> Kukjin, >>> >>> On 31.07.2014 20:32, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>>> On 07/30/14 17:07, 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<t.figa@samsung.com> >>>>> Cc: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com> >>>> >>>> Looks good to me, >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> >>>> >>>> BTW, who will handle this series? I hope see this series in 3.17. >>> >>> This series consists mostly of clock changes and it likely depends on >>> patches already in my for-next, so I would be inclined toward taking it >>> through samsung-clk tree. However, for this I would need Acks for patch >>> 5/6 from Viresh and for patches [1] and [2] (which are dependencies of >>> this series) from you. I also need to make sure that the two mentioned >>> patches don't have any dependencies already in your tree. >>> >>> [1] ARM: dts: add CPU nodes for Exynos4 SoCs >>> - https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/315 >>> [2] ARM: dts: smdk5250: Specify MAX77686 pmic interrupt >>> - http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg351134.html >> >> Aha, I'm not quite sure we really want to hurry with this series for >> 3.17. I'd prefer it to be picked up early after 3.17-rc1 shows up to sit >> in linux-next for a while an be thoroughly tested on a number of boards. > > The v9 revision of this series has completed about 2 days of testing > now on 4210/5250/5420 boards. I will let it run for few more days. For > v8 and previous versions, the tests had completed 3 or more days. So I > really don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with this > series. It would be nice to have this series merged and we start > migrating other Exynos based boards to use generic cpufreq drivers. We have 22 Exynos-based boards currently supported in mainline. Is the testing running on all of them? This is the purpose of linux-next and for series that completely replace one driver with another I'd consider this as the only reasonable choice, if not keeping the old driver for a release. Of course we have never had good testing traditions on Samsung SoC (see OMAP and Tegra baseline tests), but does it mean that we shouldn't start doing the right thing? Best regards, Tomasz
Hi Tomasz, On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31.07.2014 21:25, Thomas Abraham wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 31.07.2014 20:40, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>>> Kukjin, >>>> >>>> On 31.07.2014 20:32, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>>>> On 07/30/14 17:07, 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<t.figa@samsung.com> >>>>>> Cc: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com> >>>>> >>>>> Looks good to me, >>>>> >>>>> Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> >>>>> >>>>> BTW, who will handle this series? I hope see this series in 3.17. >>>> >>>> This series consists mostly of clock changes and it likely depends on >>>> patches already in my for-next, so I would be inclined toward taking it >>>> through samsung-clk tree. However, for this I would need Acks for patch >>>> 5/6 from Viresh and for patches [1] and [2] (which are dependencies of >>>> this series) from you. I also need to make sure that the two mentioned >>>> patches don't have any dependencies already in your tree. >>>> >>>> [1] ARM: dts: add CPU nodes for Exynos4 SoCs >>>> - https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/315 >>>> [2] ARM: dts: smdk5250: Specify MAX77686 pmic interrupt >>>> - http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg351134.html >>> >>> Aha, I'm not quite sure we really want to hurry with this series for >>> 3.17. I'd prefer it to be picked up early after 3.17-rc1 shows up to sit >>> in linux-next for a while an be thoroughly tested on a number of boards. >> >> The v9 revision of this series has completed about 2 days of testing >> now on 4210/5250/5420 boards. I will let it run for few more days. For >> v8 and previous versions, the tests had completed 3 or more days. So I >> really don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with this >> series. It would be nice to have this series merged and we start >> migrating other Exynos based boards to use generic cpufreq drivers. > > We have 22 Exynos-based boards currently supported in mainline. Is the > testing running on all of them? This is the purpose of linux-next and This series replaces existing cpufreq driver for Exynos4210 and Exynos5250 which impact 7 Exynos boards - Exynos4210 (smdk, origen, trats, universal), Exynos5250 (smdk, arndale, snow). Out of these, it is trats and universal that have not been tested. Which other 15 Exynos boards did you feel this series needs to be tested on? Sanity testing for Exynos4x12 cpufreq support was done on Exynos4412 Origen board. > for series that completely replace one driver with another I'd consider > this as the only reasonable choice, if not keeping the old driver for a > release. > > Of course we have never good testing traditions on Samsung SoC (see > OMAP and Tegra baseline tests), but does it mean that we shouldn't start > doing the right thing? Aren't Tegra/OMAP baseline tests for upstream kernel versions only, not for linux-next? Thanks, Thomas. > > Best regards, > Tomasz
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c index 493dbc2..e61bb36 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c @@ -281,6 +281,28 @@ 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" }, + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5250", .data = "cpufreq-cpu0" }, + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos4210", .data = "cpufreq-cpu0" }, + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5440", .data = "exynos5440-cpufreq" }, + { /* sentinel */ } +}; + +static void __init exynos_cpufreq_init(void) +{ + struct device_node *root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); + const struct of_device_id *match; + + match = of_match_node(exynos_cpufreq_matches, root); + if (!match) { + platform_device_register_simple("exynos-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0); + return; + } + + platform_device_register_simple(match->data, -1, NULL, 0); +} + static void __init exynos_dt_machine_init(void) { struct device_node *i2c_np; @@ -320,7 +342,7 @@ static void __init exynos_dt_machine_init(void) of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5250")) platform_device_register(&exynos_cpuidle); - platform_device_register_simple("exynos-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0); + exynos_cpufreq_init(); of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL); }