| Message ID | 7hbnrc6px3.fsf@paris.lan |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi Kevin, Thanks for taking a look at this. On 23.08.2014 01:54, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> writes: > >> 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. > > So has this series been picked up anywhere? I don't see it in your > samsung-clk tree, nor in Kukjin's for-next. No, it has not. In general it was already too late in the release cycle when the last version was posted. I had a plan to take it through clock tree with Kukjin's and Viresh's cooperation, but now as you say it... > > Also, I'm curious whether or how this is has been tested on big.LITTLE > SoCs. > > I'm trying it on the 5800/Chromebook2 and it's not terribly stable. I'm > testing along with CPUidle, so there may be some untested interactions > there as it seems a bit more stable without CPUidle enabled. > > I'd love to hear from anyone else that's testing CPUidle and CPUfreq > together big.LITTLE 5420/5800, with or without the switcher. I'd definitely like to see a clarification on this issues, before this series hits mainline or at least its parts related to affected SoCs. Also I'd like to hear some confirmation from Samsung Poland R&D Center guys (on CC), whether this code works stable on their target boards (Universal C210, Trats, Trats2). > > Also, the patch below[2] is needed for 5800. > > FWIW, I have a temporary branch[1] based on the v3.17-rc branch of the > exynos-reference tree where I've added the DT patch needed for CPUidle, > this series (and it's dependencies) which is what I'm using for testing. The patch looks fine to me (well, it's trivial :)), thanks. Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Tomasz, > Hi Kevin, > > Thanks for taking a look at this. > > On 23.08.2014 01:54, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> 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. > > > > So has this series been picked up anywhere? I don't see it in your > > samsung-clk tree, nor in Kukjin's for-next. > > No, it has not. In general it was already too late in the release > cycle when the last version was posted. > > I had a plan to take it through clock tree with Kukjin's and Viresh's > cooperation, but now as you say it... > > > > > Also, I'm curious whether or how this is has been tested on > > big.LITTLE SoCs. > > > > I'm trying it on the 5800/Chromebook2 and it's not terribly > > stable. I'm testing along with CPUidle, so there may be some > > untested interactions there as it seems a bit more stable without > > CPUidle enabled. > > > > I'd love to hear from anyone else that's testing CPUidle and CPUfreq > > together big.LITTLE 5420/5800, with or without the switcher. > > I'd definitely like to see a clarification on this issues, before this > series hits mainline or at least its parts related to affected SoCs. It is a huge step forward - to be honest it is a serious rework of cpufreq subsystem for Exynos SoCs. > Also I'd like to hear some confirmation from Samsung Poland R&D Center > guys (on CC), whether this code works stable on their target boards > (Universal C210, Trats, Trats2). > Since we have missed the merge window with this code, I can declare that I will provide code, which means that I will do the cleanup for excluded from this series Exynos4 SoCs, to test the cpufreq-cpu0. However, I'm concerned with Exynos4412, which supports BOOST. It might not be trivial to provide support for it. I think, that we shall not drop behind any functionality during clean up. > > > > Also, the patch below[2] is needed for 5800. > > > > FWIW, I have a temporary branch[1] based on the v3.17-rc branch of > > the exynos-reference tree where I've added the DT patch needed for > > CPUidle, this series (and it's dependencies) which is what I'm > > using for testing. > > The patch looks fine to me (well, it's trivial :)), thanks. > > Best regards, > Tomasz > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Hey, On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 16:54 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> writes: > > > 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. > > So has this series been picked up anywhere? I don't see it in your > samsung-clk tree, nor in Kukjin's for-next. > > Also, I'm curious whether or how this is has been tested on big.LITTLE > SoCs. > > I'm trying it on the 5800/Chromebook2 and it's not terribly stable. I'm > testing along with CPUidle, so there may be some untested interactions > there as it seems a bit more stable without CPUidle enabled. > > I'd love to hear from anyone else that's testing CPUidle and CPUfreq > together big.LITTLE 5420/5800, with or without the switcher. > > Also, the patch below[2] is needed for 5800. For reference, I had the same patch in a kernel tree we recently used for a demo on the chromebook 2 13" (Exynos 5800). We didn't see any stability issues due to this without CPUidle (using the ondemand govenor). The kernel we ended up using had CONFIG_BL_SWITCHER disabled, but i don't remember seeing stability issues when i did a testrun with that enabled.
Hi Kevin, Tomasz, On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > Thanks for taking a look at this. > > On 23.08.2014 01:54, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> 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. >> >> So has this series been picked up anywhere? I don't see it in your >> samsung-clk tree, nor in Kukjin's for-next. > > No, it has not. In general it was already too late in the release cycle > when the last version was posted. > > I had a plan to take it through clock tree with Kukjin's and Viresh's > cooperation, but now as you say it... > >> >> Also, I'm curious whether or how this is has been tested on big.LITTLE >> SoCs. >> >> I'm trying it on the 5800/Chromebook2 and it's not terribly stable. I'm >> testing along with CPUidle, so there may be some untested interactions >> there as it seems a bit more stable without CPUidle enabled. >> >> I'd love to hear from anyone else that's testing CPUidle and CPUfreq >> together big.LITTLE 5420/5800, with or without the switcher. I have tested this patch series on SMDK5420 with cpuidle (with and without b.L switcher enabled). As of now voltage scaling support is not there in generic big-little cpufreq driver (arm_big_little.c). Hence need to tie arm and kfc voltages to highest level for testing. Without this change stability issues are there, but with this change everything is stable. > > I'd definitely like to see a clarification on this issues, before this > series hits mainline or at least its parts related to affected SoCs. > Also I'd like to hear some confirmation from Samsung Poland R&D Center > guys (on CC), whether this code works stable on their target boards > (Universal C210, Trats, Trats2). > >> >> Also, the patch below[2] is needed for 5800. >> >> FWIW, I have a temporary branch[1] based on the v3.17-rc branch of the >> exynos-reference tree where I've added the DT patch needed for CPUidle, >> this series (and it's dependencies) which is what I'm using for testing. > > The patch looks fine to me (well, it's trivial :)), thanks. > > Best regards, > Tomasz > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel regards, Chander -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Chander, Chander Kashyap <k.chander@samsung.com> writes: [...] >>> I'm trying it on the 5800/Chromebook2 and it's not terribly stable. I'm >>> testing along with CPUidle, so there may be some untested interactions >>> there as it seems a bit more stable without CPUidle enabled. >>> >>> I'd love to hear from anyone else that's testing CPUidle and CPUfreq >>> together big.LITTLE 5420/5800, with or without the switcher. > > I have tested this patch series on SMDK5420 with cpuidle (with and > without b.L switcher enabled). > > As of now voltage scaling support is not there in generic big-little > cpufreq driver (arm_big_little.c). > Hence need to tie arm and kfc voltages to highest level for testing. > Without this change stability issues are there, but with this change > everything is stable. Can you clarify how you're setting the voltages to ensure stability? Tomasz, I didn't mean to suggest this isn't ready for mainline. For the 5420/5800 it seems cpufreq support is a new feature, so this isn't a regression against previous (mainline) behavior. Maybe the big.LITTLE cpufreq support should've been separated out from the cleanup since it's more of a new feature, but that's up to you. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 25.08.2014 17:32, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Hi Chander, > > Chander Kashyap <k.chander@samsung.com> writes: > > [...] > >>>> I'm trying it on the 5800/Chromebook2 and it's not terribly stable. I'm >>>> testing along with CPUidle, so there may be some untested interactions >>>> there as it seems a bit more stable without CPUidle enabled. >>>> >>>> I'd love to hear from anyone else that's testing CPUidle and CPUfreq >>>> together big.LITTLE 5420/5800, with or without the switcher. >> >> I have tested this patch series on SMDK5420 with cpuidle (with and >> without b.L switcher enabled). >> >> As of now voltage scaling support is not there in generic big-little >> cpufreq driver (arm_big_little.c). >> Hence need to tie arm and kfc voltages to highest level for testing. > >> Without this change stability issues are there, but with this change >> everything is stable. > > Can you clarify how you're setting the voltages to ensure stability? > > Tomasz, I didn't mean to suggest this isn't ready for mainline. I haven't said that either. I'd just like to know in what state this series is in case of those SoCs. However, if there are stability issues on them, there is also a chance that the same is true for other boards. Anyway, we're early in releasy cycle, so probably we could get better test coverage with this series in linux-next. Kukjin, Viresh, how would you want to proceed with merging it? It touches mach-exynos, cpufreq and samsung-clk, so it is non-trivial to merge. However as far as I can see the cpufreq-related changes are just a number of full file deletes and minor Makefile/Kconfig updates. It will be more difficult with mach-exynos changes, as they are more likely to produce conflict. The only solution that comes to my mind is that I first apply patches 1 and 2, create a stable branch for Kukjin, then he applies patches 3, 4, and 5 and creates a stable branch for me, on top of which I apply patch 6. Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 25 August 2014 21:26, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> wrote:
> Kukjin, Viresh, how would you want to proceed with merging it? It
Me and Rafael has agreed earlier that Kukjin can take these through
ARM-Soc tree..
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Chander Kashyap <k.chander@samsung.com> wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: >> Hi Chander, >> >> Chander Kashyap <k.chander@samsung.com> writes: >> >> [...] >> >>>>> I'm trying it on the 5800/Chromebook2 and it's not terribly stable. I'm >>>>> testing along with CPUidle, so there may be some untested interactions >>>>> there as it seems a bit more stable without CPUidle enabled. >>>>> >>>>> I'd love to hear from anyone else that's testing CPUidle and CPUfreq >>>>> together big.LITTLE 5420/5800, with or without the switcher. >>> >>> I have tested this patch series on SMDK5420 with cpuidle (with and >>> without b.L switcher enabled). >>> >>> As of now voltage scaling support is not there in generic big-little >>> cpufreq driver (arm_big_little.c). >>> Hence need to tie arm and kfc voltages to highest level for testing. >> >>> Without this change stability issues are there, but with this change >>> everything is stable. >> >> Can you clarify how you're setting the voltages to ensure stability? > > below is the diff : wip/exynos/integ Thanks. I've applied your patch, and bootup shows vdd_arm and vdd_kfc at 1500mV, but still when booting with cpuidle enabled (bL switcher disabled), I'm seeing lockups with no kernel output. With CPUidle disabled, things are pretty stable. What tree are you using to test this out on 5420? I'm using mainline v3.17-rc1 + DT patch for CPUidle and this cpufreq series. See my wip/exynos/integ branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux.git. Are there other out of tree dependencies that I'm missing? Is the max77802 regulator support that's in mainline sufficient? or am I missing some stuff there? Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Chander Kashyap <k.chander@samsung.com> wrote: [...] >>> >>> Can you clarify how you're setting the voltages to ensure stability? >> >> below is the diff : wip/exynos/integ > > Thanks. > > I've applied your patch, and bootup shows vdd_arm and vdd_kfc at > 1500mV, but still when booting with cpuidle enabled (bL switcher > disabled), I'm seeing lockups with no kernel output. With CPUidle > disabled, things are pretty stable. > > What tree are you using to test this out on 5420? I'm using mainline > v3.17-rc1 + DT patch for CPUidle and this cpufreq series. See my > wip/exynos/integ branch at > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux.git. I mis-stated this. Actually my tree is based on the v3.17-rc1 branch of the exynos-reference tree[1] + the above mentioned patches for cpuidle and cpufreq. Also, I've narrowed down the instability a bit, and it's not related to CPUidle. I can now trigger a boot hang even without CPUidle enabled. Here's a quick way to cause a boot lockup. With the switcher disabled, I enable CPUfreq and set the default governor to performance. As soon as cpufreq driver loads, it tries to use the top frequences for both clusters, and it hangs. Selectively disabling frequencies, I narrowed it down to the 1.3GHz and 1.2GHz frequencies of the little cluster. With these commented out in the DT, it will fully boot with the performance governor enabled. So that leads to the question. Are all of the operating points in exynos5420.dtsi valid for exynos5800, and have they been validated? Kevin [1]https://github.com/exynos-reference/kernel.git -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Kevin, On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Chander Kashyap <k.chander@samsung.com> wrote: > > [...] > >>>> >>>> Can you clarify how you're setting the voltages to ensure stability? >>> >>> below is the diff : wip/exynos/integ >> >> Thanks. >> >> I've applied your patch, and bootup shows vdd_arm and vdd_kfc at >> 1500mV, but still when booting with cpuidle enabled (bL switcher >> disabled), I'm seeing lockups with no kernel output. With CPUidle >> disabled, things are pretty stable. >> >> What tree are you using to test this out on 5420? I'm using mainline >> v3.17-rc1 + DT patch for CPUidle and this cpufreq series. See my >> wip/exynos/integ branch at >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux.git. > > I mis-stated this. Actually my tree is based on the v3.17-rc1 branch > of the exynos-reference tree[1] + the above mentioned patches for > cpuidle and cpufreq. > > Also, I've narrowed down the instability a bit, and it's not related > to CPUidle. I can now trigger a boot hang even without CPUidle > enabled. Here's a quick way to cause a boot lockup. With the switcher > disabled, I enable CPUfreq and set the default governor to > performance. As soon as cpufreq driver loads, it tries to use the top > frequences for both clusters, and it hangs. > > Selectively disabling frequencies, I narrowed it down to the 1.3GHz > and 1.2GHz frequencies of the little cluster. With these commented > out in the DT, it will fully boot with the performance governor > enabled. > > So that leads to the question. Are all of the operating points in > exynos5420.dtsi valid for exynos5800, and have they been validated? I tried to recreate the boot lockup issue using the same steps you listed above for the Exynos5800 peach-pi platform (Chromebook2), but I do not see any issues. I can see both clusters with max clock speed after boot (1.8GHz and 1.3GHz). I am using v3.17-rc2 + CPUFreq Patches + max77802 regulator support patches for Chromebook2 + temp hack to set A15 voltage to 1.35V and A7 voltage to 1.3V. Sorry for the delaying in following up. Thanks, Thomas. > > Kevin > > [1]https://github.com/exynos-reference/kernel.git > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Thomas, On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Chander Kashyap <k.chander@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>>> >>>>> Can you clarify how you're setting the voltages to ensure stability? >>>> >>>> below is the diff : wip/exynos/integ >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> I've applied your patch, and bootup shows vdd_arm and vdd_kfc at >>> 1500mV, but still when booting with cpuidle enabled (bL switcher >>> disabled), I'm seeing lockups with no kernel output. With CPUidle >>> disabled, things are pretty stable. >>> >>> What tree are you using to test this out on 5420? I'm using mainline >>> v3.17-rc1 + DT patch for CPUidle and this cpufreq series. See my >>> wip/exynos/integ branch at >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux.git. >> >> I mis-stated this. Actually my tree is based on the v3.17-rc1 branch >> of the exynos-reference tree[1] + the above mentioned patches for >> cpuidle and cpufreq. >> >> Also, I've narrowed down the instability a bit, and it's not related >> to CPUidle. I can now trigger a boot hang even without CPUidle >> enabled. Here's a quick way to cause a boot lockup. With the switcher >> disabled, I enable CPUfreq and set the default governor to >> performance. As soon as cpufreq driver loads, it tries to use the top >> frequences for both clusters, and it hangs. >> >> Selectively disabling frequencies, I narrowed it down to the 1.3GHz >> and 1.2GHz frequencies of the little cluster. With these commented >> out in the DT, it will fully boot with the performance governor >> enabled. >> >> So that leads to the question. Are all of the operating points in >> exynos5420.dtsi valid for exynos5800, and have they been validated? > > I tried to recreate the boot lockup issue using the same steps you > listed above for the Exynos5800 peach-pi platform (Chromebook2), but I > do not see any issues. I can see both clusters with max clock speed > after boot (1.8GHz and 1.3GHz). > > I am using v3.17-rc2 + CPUFreq Patches + max77802 regulator support > patches for Chromebook2 + temp hack to set A15 voltage to 1.35V and A7 > voltage to 1.3V. Can you share your branch and temp hack(s) as well as your defconfig? I'm using the v3.17-rc1 branch from the exynos tree (which includes the max77802 series) but also has a bunch of other stuff which may be causing the issue. It would be good if I can reproduce your exact tree/branch and see if I still have the same problem. Thanks for looking into this, Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Kevin, On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org> wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Kevin, >> >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Chander Kashyap <k.chander@samsung.com> wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you clarify how you're setting the voltages to ensure stability? >>>>> >>>>> below is the diff : wip/exynos/integ >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> I've applied your patch, and bootup shows vdd_arm and vdd_kfc at >>>> 1500mV, but still when booting with cpuidle enabled (bL switcher >>>> disabled), I'm seeing lockups with no kernel output. With CPUidle >>>> disabled, things are pretty stable. >>>> >>>> What tree are you using to test this out on 5420? I'm using mainline >>>> v3.17-rc1 + DT patch for CPUidle and this cpufreq series. See my >>>> wip/exynos/integ branch at >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux.git. >>> >>> I mis-stated this. Actually my tree is based on the v3.17-rc1 branch >>> of the exynos-reference tree[1] + the above mentioned patches for >>> cpuidle and cpufreq. >>> >>> Also, I've narrowed down the instability a bit, and it's not related >>> to CPUidle. I can now trigger a boot hang even without CPUidle >>> enabled. Here's a quick way to cause a boot lockup. With the switcher >>> disabled, I enable CPUfreq and set the default governor to >>> performance. As soon as cpufreq driver loads, it tries to use the top >>> frequences for both clusters, and it hangs. >>> >>> Selectively disabling frequencies, I narrowed it down to the 1.3GHz >>> and 1.2GHz frequencies of the little cluster. With these commented >>> out in the DT, it will fully boot with the performance governor >>> enabled. >>> >>> So that leads to the question. Are all of the operating points in >>> exynos5420.dtsi valid for exynos5800, and have they been validated? >> >> I tried to recreate the boot lockup issue using the same steps you >> listed above for the Exynos5800 peach-pi platform (Chromebook2), but I >> do not see any issues. I can see both clusters with max clock speed >> after boot (1.8GHz and 1.3GHz). >> >> I am using v3.17-rc2 + CPUFreq Patches + max77802 regulator support >> patches for Chromebook2 + temp hack to set A15 voltage to 1.35V and A7 >> voltage to 1.3V. > > Can you share your branch and temp hack(s) as well as your defconfig? > > I'm using the v3.17-rc1 branch from the exynos tree (which includes > the max77802 series) but also has a bunch of other stuff which may be > causing the issue. > > It would be good if I can reproduce your exact tree/branch and see if > I still have the same problem. The branch with the patches that have been used to test cpufreq on Exynos5800 is available at https://github.com/exynos-reference/kernel/tree/exynos5-v3.17-rc3-temp-cpufreq Please let me know if this works or if there are any issues. Thanks, Thomas. > > Thanks for looking into this, > > Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
HI Thomas, Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org> wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Kevin, >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Chander Kashyap <k.chander@samsung.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you clarify how you're setting the voltages to ensure stability? >>>>>> >>>>>> below is the diff : wip/exynos/integ >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> I've applied your patch, and bootup shows vdd_arm and vdd_kfc at >>>>> 1500mV, but still when booting with cpuidle enabled (bL switcher >>>>> disabled), I'm seeing lockups with no kernel output. With CPUidle >>>>> disabled, things are pretty stable. >>>>> >>>>> What tree are you using to test this out on 5420? I'm using mainline >>>>> v3.17-rc1 + DT patch for CPUidle and this cpufreq series. See my >>>>> wip/exynos/integ branch at >>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux.git. >>>> >>>> I mis-stated this. Actually my tree is based on the v3.17-rc1 branch >>>> of the exynos-reference tree[1] + the above mentioned patches for >>>> cpuidle and cpufreq. >>>> >>>> Also, I've narrowed down the instability a bit, and it's not related >>>> to CPUidle. I can now trigger a boot hang even without CPUidle >>>> enabled. Here's a quick way to cause a boot lockup. With the switcher >>>> disabled, I enable CPUfreq and set the default governor to >>>> performance. As soon as cpufreq driver loads, it tries to use the top >>>> frequences for both clusters, and it hangs. >>>> >>>> Selectively disabling frequencies, I narrowed it down to the 1.3GHz >>>> and 1.2GHz frequencies of the little cluster. With these commented >>>> out in the DT, it will fully boot with the performance governor >>>> enabled. >>>> >>>> So that leads to the question. Are all of the operating points in >>>> exynos5420.dtsi valid for exynos5800, and have they been validated? >>> >>> I tried to recreate the boot lockup issue using the same steps you >>> listed above for the Exynos5800 peach-pi platform (Chromebook2), but I >>> do not see any issues. I can see both clusters with max clock speed >>> after boot (1.8GHz and 1.3GHz). >>> >>> I am using v3.17-rc2 + CPUFreq Patches + max77802 regulator support >>> patches for Chromebook2 + temp hack to set A15 voltage to 1.35V and A7 >>> voltage to 1.3V. >> >> Can you share your branch and temp hack(s) as well as your defconfig? >> >> I'm using the v3.17-rc1 branch from the exynos tree (which includes >> the max77802 series) but also has a bunch of other stuff which may be >> causing the issue. >> >> It would be good if I can reproduce your exact tree/branch and see if >> I still have the same problem. > > The branch with the patches that have been used to test cpufreq on > Exynos5800 is available at > > https://github.com/exynos-reference/kernel/tree/exynos5-v3.17-rc3-temp-cpufreq > > Please let me know if this works or if there are any issues. Yes, your branch works fine, but it's because of the last (unposted) patch on your branch[1]: ARM: dts: remove all supplies sourced from tps65090 PMIC That patch had not been posted, so I hadn't seen it before, but based on the changelog, it's pretty clear you had the same problems that I had without it, so I'm not sure why it wasn't mentioned earlier in this thread. I also noticed that the "force vdd_arm and vdd_kfc to max voltage" patch is not actually using the max voltage, which appears to be 1.5V from the DT, but actually using 1.35 V, however the changelog has no explanation for this. One other thing, your temp-cpufreq branch has conflicts with max77802 stuff in the v3.17-rc1 branch of the exynos-reference tree (which I'm using for CPUidle dependencies, on the PMU series IIRC.) Are there any plans to update the main referece branch and include cpufreq? Kevin [1] https://github.com/exynos-reference/kernel/commit/f08be7e4296a3452ee5d1aae31e3de5bbff2cf1a -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Kevin, On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org> wrote: > HI Thomas, > > Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org> wrote: >>> Hi Thomas, >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Kevin, >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Chander Kashyap <k.chander@samsung.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you clarify how you're setting the voltages to ensure stability? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> below is the diff : wip/exynos/integ >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've applied your patch, and bootup shows vdd_arm and vdd_kfc at >>>>>> 1500mV, but still when booting with cpuidle enabled (bL switcher >>>>>> disabled), I'm seeing lockups with no kernel output. With CPUidle >>>>>> disabled, things are pretty stable. >>>>>> >>>>>> What tree are you using to test this out on 5420? I'm using mainline >>>>>> v3.17-rc1 + DT patch for CPUidle and this cpufreq series. See my >>>>>> wip/exynos/integ branch at >>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux.git. >>>>> >>>>> I mis-stated this. Actually my tree is based on the v3.17-rc1 branch >>>>> of the exynos-reference tree[1] + the above mentioned patches for >>>>> cpuidle and cpufreq. >>>>> >>>>> Also, I've narrowed down the instability a bit, and it's not related >>>>> to CPUidle. I can now trigger a boot hang even without CPUidle >>>>> enabled. Here's a quick way to cause a boot lockup. With the switcher >>>>> disabled, I enable CPUfreq and set the default governor to >>>>> performance. As soon as cpufreq driver loads, it tries to use the top >>>>> frequences for both clusters, and it hangs. >>>>> >>>>> Selectively disabling frequencies, I narrowed it down to the 1.3GHz >>>>> and 1.2GHz frequencies of the little cluster. With these commented >>>>> out in the DT, it will fully boot with the performance governor >>>>> enabled. >>>>> >>>>> So that leads to the question. Are all of the operating points in >>>>> exynos5420.dtsi valid for exynos5800, and have they been validated? >>>> >>>> I tried to recreate the boot lockup issue using the same steps you >>>> listed above for the Exynos5800 peach-pi platform (Chromebook2), but I >>>> do not see any issues. I can see both clusters with max clock speed >>>> after boot (1.8GHz and 1.3GHz). >>>> >>>> I am using v3.17-rc2 + CPUFreq Patches + max77802 regulator support >>>> patches for Chromebook2 + temp hack to set A15 voltage to 1.35V and A7 >>>> voltage to 1.3V. >>> >>> Can you share your branch and temp hack(s) as well as your defconfig? >>> >>> I'm using the v3.17-rc1 branch from the exynos tree (which includes >>> the max77802 series) but also has a bunch of other stuff which may be >>> causing the issue. >>> >>> It would be good if I can reproduce your exact tree/branch and see if >>> I still have the same problem. >> >> The branch with the patches that have been used to test cpufreq on >> Exynos5800 is available at >> >> https://github.com/exynos-reference/kernel/tree/exynos5-v3.17-rc3-temp-cpufreq >> >> Please let me know if this works or if there are any issues. > > Yes, your branch works fine, but it's because of the last (unposted) > patch on your branch[1]: > ARM: dts: remove all supplies sourced from tps65090 PMIC I must have explicitly stated that I am using local changes to get vdd_arm and vdd_kfc to required levels. I apologize for that. These are local temporary changes which I did not want to post. I am working on adding voltage scaling support in arm bL cpufreq driver with which these local hacks would not be necessary. > > That patch had not been posted, so I hadn't seen it before, but based on > the changelog, it's pretty clear you had the same problems that I had > without it, so I'm not sure why it wasn't mentioned earlier in this > thread. At the time of posting, this patch series was only tested on Exynos5420 based smdk5420 board. There was no regulator support for peach-pit and peach-pi at that time and so I had not tested this series on Exynos5800 Chromebook2. But the code was written to be fully compatible for Exynos5800 as well. It was when you reported a problem with Exynos5800 that I tested this series on Exynos5800 with the regulator patches from Javier. > > I also noticed that the "force vdd_arm and vdd_kfc to max voltage" patch > is not actually using the max voltage, which appears to be 1.5V from the > DT, but actually using 1.35 V, however the changelog has no explanation > for this. This also is a temporary patch and by "max voltage" I actually meant max voltage required to operate the cpus and not the max voltage that the buck can supply. > > One other thing, your temp-cpufreq branch has conflicts with max77802 > stuff in the v3.17-rc1 branch of the exynos-reference tree (which I'm > using for CPUidle dependencies, on the PMU series IIRC.) I haven't checked but probably there is an older version of Javier's regulator patches in the v3.17-rc1 branch. > > Are there any plans to update the main referece branch and include > cpufreq? Yes, a new branch with all the latest patches (cpufreq + regulator + temp fixes) will be created. I will let you when that is ready. Thanks, Thomas. > > Kevin > > [1] https://github.com/exynos-reference/kernel/commit/f08be7e4296a3452ee5d1aae31e3de5bbff2cf1a -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org> wrote: >> HI Thomas, >> >> Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org> wrote: >>>> Hi Thomas, >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi Kevin, >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Chander Kashyap <k.chander@samsung.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can you clarify how you're setting the voltages to ensure stability? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> below is the diff : wip/exynos/integ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've applied your patch, and bootup shows vdd_arm and vdd_kfc at >>>>>>> 1500mV, but still when booting with cpuidle enabled (bL switcher >>>>>>> disabled), I'm seeing lockups with no kernel output. With CPUidle >>>>>>> disabled, things are pretty stable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What tree are you using to test this out on 5420? I'm using mainline >>>>>>> v3.17-rc1 + DT patch for CPUidle and this cpufreq series. See my >>>>>>> wip/exynos/integ branch at >>>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux.git. >>>>>> >>>>>> I mis-stated this. Actually my tree is based on the v3.17-rc1 branch >>>>>> of the exynos-reference tree[1] + the above mentioned patches for >>>>>> cpuidle and cpufreq. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I've narrowed down the instability a bit, and it's not related >>>>>> to CPUidle. I can now trigger a boot hang even without CPUidle >>>>>> enabled. Here's a quick way to cause a boot lockup. With the switcher >>>>>> disabled, I enable CPUfreq and set the default governor to >>>>>> performance. As soon as cpufreq driver loads, it tries to use the top >>>>>> frequences for both clusters, and it hangs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Selectively disabling frequencies, I narrowed it down to the 1.3GHz >>>>>> and 1.2GHz frequencies of the little cluster. With these commented >>>>>> out in the DT, it will fully boot with the performance governor >>>>>> enabled. >>>>>> >>>>>> So that leads to the question. Are all of the operating points in >>>>>> exynos5420.dtsi valid for exynos5800, and have they been validated? >>>>> >>>>> I tried to recreate the boot lockup issue using the same steps you >>>>> listed above for the Exynos5800 peach-pi platform (Chromebook2), but I >>>>> do not see any issues. I can see both clusters with max clock speed >>>>> after boot (1.8GHz and 1.3GHz). >>>>> >>>>> I am using v3.17-rc2 + CPUFreq Patches + max77802 regulator support >>>>> patches for Chromebook2 + temp hack to set A15 voltage to 1.35V and A7 >>>>> voltage to 1.3V. >>>> >>>> Can you share your branch and temp hack(s) as well as your defconfig? >>>> >>>> I'm using the v3.17-rc1 branch from the exynos tree (which includes >>>> the max77802 series) but also has a bunch of other stuff which may be >>>> causing the issue. >>>> >>>> It would be good if I can reproduce your exact tree/branch and see if >>>> I still have the same problem. >>> >>> The branch with the patches that have been used to test cpufreq on >>> Exynos5800 is available at >>> >>> https://github.com/exynos-reference/kernel/tree/exynos5-v3.17-rc3-temp-cpufreq >>> >>> Please let me know if this works or if there are any issues. >> >> Yes, your branch works fine, but it's because of the last (unposted) >> patch on your branch[1]: >> ARM: dts: remove all supplies sourced from tps65090 PMIC > > I must have explicitly stated that I am using local changes to get > vdd_arm and vdd_kfc to required levels. I apologize for that. These > are local temporary changes which I did not want to post. I am working > on adding voltage scaling support in arm bL cpufreq driver with which > these local hacks would not be necessary. > >> >> That patch had not been posted, so I hadn't seen it before, but based on >> the changelog, it's pretty clear you had the same problems that I had >> without it, so I'm not sure why it wasn't mentioned earlier in this >> thread. > > At the time of posting, this patch series was only tested on > Exynos5420 based smdk5420 board. There was no regulator support for > peach-pit and peach-pi at that time and so I had not tested this > series on Exynos5800 Chromebook2. But the code was written to be fully > compatible for Exynos5800 as well. It was when you reported a problem > with Exynos5800 that I tested this series on Exynos5800 with the > regulator patches from Javier. > >> >> I also noticed that the "force vdd_arm and vdd_kfc to max voltage" patch >> is not actually using the max voltage, which appears to be 1.5V from the >> DT, but actually using 1.35 V, however the changelog has no explanation >> for this. > > This also is a temporary patch and by "max voltage" I actually meant > max voltage required to operate the cpus and not the max voltage that > the buck can supply. > >> >> One other thing, your temp-cpufreq branch has conflicts with max77802 >> stuff in the v3.17-rc1 branch of the exynos-reference tree (which I'm >> using for CPUidle dependencies, on the PMU series IIRC.) > > I haven't checked but probably there is an older version of Javier's > regulator patches in the v3.17-rc1 branch. > >> >> Are there any plans to update the main referece branch and include >> cpufreq? > > Yes, a new branch with all the latest patches (cpufreq + regulator + > temp fixes) will be created. I will let you when that is ready. Hi Kevin, A new branch [1] has been created using commits from exynos5-v3.17-rc1 branch + cpufreq + regulator + temp fixes. I have tested this branch on Exynos5800 Chromebook2 and cpufreq works fine with both ondemand and performance governors. Please let me know if there are any issues with this new branch. It is based on v3.17-rc3. [1] https://github.com/exynos-reference/kernel/tree/exynos5-v3.17-rc3 Thanks, Thomas. > > Thanks, > Thomas. > >> >> Kevin >> >> [1] https://github.com/exynos-reference/kernel/commit/f08be7e4296a3452ee5d1aae31e3de5bbff2cf1a -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Thomas, Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com> writes: [...] > A new branch [1] has been created using commits from exynos5-v3.17-rc1 > branch + cpufreq + regulator + temp fixes. I have tested this branch > on Exynos5800 Chromebook2 and cpufreq works fine with both ondemand > and performance governors. Please let me know if there are any issues > with this new branch. It is based on v3.17-rc3. Excellent! Thank you. The only thing missing now is the CPUidle support for 5800, and all that's needed for that is the compatible string patch[1] which Daniel has queued up. With that patch, display + CPUidle + CPUfreq are working pretty well on my exynos5800/chromebook2 with the big.LITTLE switcher disabled. If I turn on the switcher, it boots OK, but as soon as I try to run powertop (upstream v2.6.1) it gets stuck. Have you tried this branch with the switcher enabled? Thanks again for your work on this, we're getting close! Kevin [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/279028.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org> wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com> writes: > > [...] > >> A new branch [1] has been created using commits from exynos5-v3.17-rc1 >> branch + cpufreq + regulator + temp fixes. I have tested this branch >> on Exynos5800 Chromebook2 and cpufreq works fine with both ondemand >> and performance governors. Please let me know if there are any issues >> with this new branch. It is based on v3.17-rc3. > > Excellent! Thank you. > > The only thing missing now is the CPUidle support for 5800, and all > that's needed for that is the compatible string patch[1] which Daniel > has queued up. > > With that patch, display + CPUidle + CPUfreq are working pretty well on > my exynos5800/chromebook2 with the big.LITTLE switcher disabled. If I > turn on the switcher, it boots OK, but as soon as I try to run powertop > (upstream v2.6.1) it gets stuck. Have you tried this branch with the > switcher enabled? Yes, I have tested switcher + cpufreq + cpuidle with this branch and there are no issues found. I haven't tested with powertop yet. I will try and do that and let you know the result. You mentioned that when you run powertop, it gets stuck. When that happens, is there any log on the console or does system just turn unresponsive? Thanks, Thomas. > > Thanks again for your work on this, we're getting close! > > Kevin > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/279028.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org> wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@gmail.com> writes: >> >> [...] >> >>> A new branch [1] has been created using commits from exynos5-v3.17-rc1 >>> branch + cpufreq + regulator + temp fixes. I have tested this branch >>> on Exynos5800 Chromebook2 and cpufreq works fine with both ondemand >>> and performance governors. Please let me know if there are any issues >>> with this new branch. It is based on v3.17-rc3. >> >> Excellent! Thank you. >> >> The only thing missing now is the CPUidle support for 5800, and all >> that's needed for that is the compatible string patch[1] which Daniel >> has queued up. >> >> With that patch, display + CPUidle + CPUfreq are working pretty well on >> my exynos5800/chromebook2 with the big.LITTLE switcher disabled. If I >> turn on the switcher, it boots OK, but as soon as I try to run powertop >> (upstream v2.6.1) it gets stuck. Have you tried this branch with the >> switcher enabled? > > Yes, I have tested switcher + cpufreq + cpuidle with this branch and > there are no issues found. I haven't tested with powertop yet. I will > try and do that and let you know the result. > > You mentioned that when you run powertop, it gets stuck. When that > happens, is there any log on the console or does system just turn > unresponsive? The console is not responsive, but kernel seems busy because I see periodic timeout messages from the samsung clock driver. Note that I see these messages when things are functioning normally also. Kevin [1] [ 337.832031] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 337.847024] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 337.862024] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 337.957028] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 337.972024] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 337.987024] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 340.082029] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 340.097024] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 340.112024] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 346.242030] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 346.257024] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 346.272024] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 348.322029] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 348.337025] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization [ 348.352024] wait_until_divider_stable: timeout in divider stablization -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c index 8923d37c3e85..debe50bf736a 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c @@ -283,6 +283,7 @@ static void __init exynos_init_irq(void) static const struct of_device_id exynos_cpufreq_matches[] = { { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5420", .data = "arm-bL-cpufreq-dt" }, + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5800", .data = "arm-bL-cpufreq-dt" }, { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5250", .data = "cpufreq-cpu0" }, { .compatible = "samsung,exynos4210", .data = "cpufreq-cpu0" }, { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5440", .data = "exynos5440-cpufreq" },