diff mbox series

[2/4] cpuidle: big.LITTLE: enable driver only on Peach-Pit/Pi Chromebooks

Message ID 20200616081230.31198-3-m.szyprowski@samsung.com (mailing list archive)
State Accepted
Headers show
Series Restore big.LITTLE cpuidle driver for Exynos | expand

Commit Message

Marek Szyprowski June 16, 2020, 8:12 a.m. UTC
This driver always worked properly only on the Exynos 5420/5800 based
Chromebooks (Peach-Pit/Pi), so change the required compatible string to
the 'google,peach', to avoid enabling it on the other Exynos 542x/5800
boards, which hangs in such case. The main difference between Peach-Pit/Pi
and other Exynos 542x/5800 boards is the firmware - Peach platform doesn't
use secure firmware at all.

Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
---
 drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Krzysztof Kozlowski June 22, 2020, 5:19 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:12:28AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> This driver always worked properly only on the Exynos 5420/5800 based
> Chromebooks (Peach-Pit/Pi), so change the required compatible string to
> the 'google,peach', to avoid enabling it on the other Exynos 542x/5800
> boards, which hangs in such case. The main difference between Peach-Pit/Pi
> and other Exynos 542x/5800 boards is the firmware - Peach platform doesn't
> use secure firmware at all.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>

Best regards,
Krzysztof
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz June 24, 2020, 10:05 a.m. UTC | #2
On 6/16/20 10:12 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> This driver always worked properly only on the Exynos 5420/5800 based
> Chromebooks (Peach-Pit/Pi), so change the required compatible string to
> the 'google,peach', to avoid enabling it on the other Exynos 542x/5800
> boards, which hangs in such case. The main difference between Peach-Pit/Pi
> and other Exynos 542x/5800 boards is the firmware - Peach platform doesn't
> use secure firmware at all.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>

Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>

Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics

> ---
>  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c
> index 7f8ddc04342d..abe51185f243 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c
> @@ -155,8 +155,7 @@ static int __init bl_idle_driver_init(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int part_id)
>  
>  static const struct of_device_id compatible_machine_match[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "arm,vexpress,v2p-ca15_a7" },
> -	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos5420" },
> -	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos5800" },
> +	{ .compatible = "google,peach" },
>  	{},
>  };
>  
>
Krzysztof Kozlowski Aug. 17, 2020, 3:39 p.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:05:46PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> 
> On 6/16/20 10:12 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > This driver always worked properly only on the Exynos 5420/5800 based
> > Chromebooks (Peach-Pit/Pi), so change the required compatible string to
> > the 'google,peach', to avoid enabling it on the other Exynos 542x/5800
> > boards, which hangs in such case. The main difference between Peach-Pit/Pi
> > and other Exynos 542x/5800 boards is the firmware - Peach platform doesn't
> > use secure firmware at all.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>

This patch waited on list for almost two months and was not picked up.
Therefore I'll take it for v5.10.

Thanks, applied.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
Daniel Lezcano Aug. 24, 2020, 8:15 a.m. UTC | #4
On 17/08/2020 17:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:05:46PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>
>> On 6/16/20 10:12 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>>> This driver always worked properly only on the Exynos 5420/5800 based
>>> Chromebooks (Peach-Pit/Pi), so change the required compatible string to
>>> the 'google,peach', to avoid enabling it on the other Exynos 542x/5800
>>> boards, which hangs in such case. The main difference between Peach-Pit/Pi
>>> and other Exynos 542x/5800 boards is the firmware - Peach platform doesn't
>>> use secure firmware at all.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
> 
> This patch waited on list for almost two months and was not picked up.
> Therefore I'll take it for v5.10.

It happens some patches can fall into the cracks, especially when we are
fully busy with a peak of work. Also, we have filters in our mailers
which are not perfect. A gentle ping is enough to ask to pay attention
to the series.

I can understand that is annoying, but preemptively pick the patch is
not adequate.
Krzysztof Kozlowski Aug. 24, 2020, 8:26 a.m. UTC | #5
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:15:42AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 17/08/2020 17:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:05:46PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/16/20 10:12 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> >>> This driver always worked properly only on the Exynos 5420/5800 based
> >>> Chromebooks (Peach-Pit/Pi), so change the required compatible string to
> >>> the 'google,peach', to avoid enabling it on the other Exynos 542x/5800
> >>> boards, which hangs in such case. The main difference between Peach-Pit/Pi
> >>> and other Exynos 542x/5800 boards is the firmware - Peach platform doesn't
> >>> use secure firmware at all.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
> > 
> > This patch waited on list for almost two months and was not picked up.
> > Therefore I'll take it for v5.10.
> 
> It happens some patches can fall into the cracks, especially when we are
> fully busy with a peak of work. Also, we have filters in our mailers
> which are not perfect. A gentle ping is enough to ask to pay attention
> to the series.
> 
> I can understand that is annoying, but preemptively pick the patch is
> not adequate.

I apologize if my message was harsh or sounded rude. That was not my
intention.

I understand that patches soometimes got missed. That's life. This patch
here is quite simple, non-intrusive, got independent ack. Also in the
past SoC-specific drivers were sometimes going through SoC tree (so in
this case - mine for Samsung).  Patch also blocks the dependant DT
change (for entire cycle). Therefore I guessed that it won't be a
problem and it is just simpler to apply it.

If it is an issue, I can drop it and rebase my branch.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
Daniel Lezcano Aug. 24, 2020, 9:14 a.m. UTC | #6
On 24/08/2020 10:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:15:42AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 17/08/2020 17:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:05:46PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/16/20 10:12 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>>>>> This driver always worked properly only on the Exynos 5420/5800 based
>>>>> Chromebooks (Peach-Pit/Pi), so change the required compatible string to
>>>>> the 'google,peach', to avoid enabling it on the other Exynos 542x/5800
>>>>> boards, which hangs in such case. The main difference between Peach-Pit/Pi
>>>>> and other Exynos 542x/5800 boards is the firmware - Peach platform doesn't
>>>>> use secure firmware at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
>>>
>>> This patch waited on list for almost two months and was not picked up.
>>> Therefore I'll take it for v5.10.
>>
>> It happens some patches can fall into the cracks, especially when we are
>> fully busy with a peak of work. Also, we have filters in our mailers
>> which are not perfect. A gentle ping is enough to ask to pay attention
>> to the series.
>>
>> I can understand that is annoying, but preemptively pick the patch is
>> not adequate.
> 
> I apologize if my message was harsh or sounded rude. That was not my
> intention.

No worries.

> I understand that patches soometimes got missed. That's life. This patch
> here is quite simple, non-intrusive, got independent ack. Also in the
> past SoC-specific drivers were sometimes going through SoC tree (so in
> this case - mine for Samsung).  Patch also blocks the dependant DT
> change (for entire cycle). Therefore I guessed that it won't be a
> problem and it is just simpler to apply it.
> 
> If it is an issue, I can drop it and rebase my branch.

It is fine if you can add my ack.

Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>

Thanks

  -- Daniel
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c
index 7f8ddc04342d..abe51185f243 100644
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c
@@ -155,8 +155,7 @@  static int __init bl_idle_driver_init(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int part_id)
 
 static const struct of_device_id compatible_machine_match[] = {
 	{ .compatible = "arm,vexpress,v2p-ca15_a7" },
-	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos5420" },
-	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos5800" },
+	{ .compatible = "google,peach" },
 	{},
 };