Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1712719 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH V3 3/9] cpufreq: Cap the default transition delay value to 10 ms

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH V3 3/9] cpufreq: Cap the default transition delay value  to 10 ms Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-08-16 08:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH V3 3/9] cpufreq: Cap the default transition delay value  to 10 ms Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-08-17 05:40 +0200

#1712719 — Re: [PATCH V3 3/9] cpufreq: Cap the default transition delay value to 10 ms

On 28-07-17, 10:58, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> At this point I really feel that this is a hardware specific problem
> and it was working by chance until now. And I am not sure if we
> shouldn't be stopping this patch from getting merged just because of
> that.
> 
> At least you can teach your distribution to go increase the sampling
> rate from userspace to make it all work.

Its been 3 weeks since my last email on this thread and no reply yet
from any of the IMX maintainers. Can someone please help here ?

@Shawn: Can you help debugging a bit here, to see what's get screwed
up due to this commit ? Its just that your platform isn't able to
change freq at 10 ms rate.

@Rafael: I am not sure, but should we be stopping this patch because
some hardware isn't able to change freq at 10ms interval and is just
faking the transition delay to start with ?

Maybe we get this merged again and the IMX guys can figure out what's
wrong on their platform and how to fix it ?

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1713501

On 16-08-17, 12:42, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> I reported the initial issue but did not have the time to do a more
> thorough investigation, this is more complicated than it seems. I said
> this before but maybe it got lost:
> 
> I don't think the odd behavior I noticed justifies keeping the patch
> from merging.

Thanks for that.

I will resend this patch now.

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web