Re: [RFC v2 0/5] Per-user clock constraints

From: Tomeu Vizoso
Date: Thu Jul 10 2014 - 04:00:58 EST

On 07/09/2014 10:16 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Hi Tomeu,

On 03.07.2014 16:38, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:

here is another round for commenting, not very different from the first one.

Something I forgot to mention before is that the function rename was performed
by the scripts in:

As before, I have only checked that drivers/clk/ builds with allyesconfig, and
that a kernel can be built for tegra_defconfig.

This is quite an interesting series. I have reviewed two of five patches
and have plans to look at remaining ones, however here are few general
issues I'd like to raise:

- somehow I don't see patch 2/5 on LAKML. Too big?

Yes, I'm not sure what I can do about that, but it's only automated function renaming. I'm going to send v3 in a bit and will CC you.

- I see the series changing particular clock drivers. A good practice
would be to Cc respective driver maintainers to take a look at those

Now that I'm more confident about this approach, for the next version I'm going to CC them as well.

- please make sure that all the patches don't have checkpatch errors or
significant warnings.


Will try (myself or by asking someone else) to do some testing on
Samsung platforms.

That will be great, thanks. One scenario I'm looking forward to test this with is low system load while the display is being updated often at a high resolution.

I would expect to see that the Exynos5 devfreq driver sets a relatively low floor frequency, and the DC driver overrides that by setting a higher floor, based on the calculated bandwidth that will be required to move pixels around.



Best regards,

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at