| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
There have been patches hanging around for ages to add support for
cpufreq to PXA255 processors. It's about time we applied one.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
I just stumbled on this bug/feature, this is how to reproduce it:
# echo 450000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
# echo 450000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
# echo powersave > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor
# cpufreq-info -p
450000 450000 powersave
# echo 1800000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq ; echo $?
0
# cpufreq-info -p
450000 450000 powersave
Here it is. The kernel refuses to set a min_freq higher than the
max_freq but it allows a max_freq lower than min_freq (lowering min_freq
also).
This behaviour is pretty straightforward (but undocumented) and it
doesn't return an error altough failing to accomplish the requested
action (set min_freq).
The problem (IMO) is basically that userspace is not allowed to set a
full policy atomically while the kernel always does that thus it must
enforce an ordering on operations.
The attached patch returns -EINVAL if trying to increase frequencies
starting from scaling_min_freq and documents the correct ordering of writes.
Signed-off-by: Mattia Dongili <malattia@linux.it>
Signed-off-by: Dominik Brodowski <linux at dominikbrodowski.net>
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
--
|
|
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.
Let it rip!
|
