-by: Timo Sigurdsson <public_tim...@silentcreek.de>
---
arch/arm/configs/sunxi_defconfig | 8 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/sunxi_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/sunxi_defconfig
index 90252ca..95b51fc 100644
--- a/arch/arm/configs/sunxi_defconfig
e the line disabling CONFIG_KEYBOARD in
order to really enable KEYBOARD_SUN4I_LRADC.
Signed-off-by: Timo Sigurdsson <public_tim...@silentcreek.de>
---
arch/arm/configs/sunxi_defconfig | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/sunxi_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/sunxi
Sorry, sent out the reply first to Maxime only and forgot to include the
rest of the bunch. So, here we go again...
Hi Maxime,
Am Freitag, den 20.11.2015, 00:43 +0100 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:48:35PM +0100, Timo Sigurdsson wrote:
> > Hi Maxime,
_defconfig.
Signed-off-by: Timo Sigurdsson <public_tim...@silentcreek.de>
---
arch/arm/configs/sunxi_defconfig | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/sunxi_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/sunxi_defconfig
index 3c36e16..0bbc2ee 100644
--- a/
of
CONFIG_KEYBOARD_SUN4I_LRADC and not have it removed while cleaning up
Good night,
Timo
Am Freitag, den 20.11.2015, 02:46 +0100 schrieb Timo Sigurdsson:
> Commit 3d0b16a66c8a ("nvmem: sunxi: Move the SID driver to the nvmem
> framework") moved the the sunxi SID driver to a new framework, but left
&
the driver
in multi_v7_defconfig.
Signed-off-by: Timo Sigurdsson <public_tim...@silentcreek.de>
---
Changes in v2:
- Move the extra cleanup work for multi_v7_defconfig to a separate
patch (to be submitted at a later point to avoid conflicts with
another patch waiting to be merged)
---
arch/arm/configs/mu
Hi Maxime,
Hi Chen-Yu,
Am Dienstag, den 17.11.2015, 02:42 +0100 schrieb Timo Sigurdsson:
> Commit 3d0b16a66c8a ("nvmem: sunxi: Move the SID driver to the nvmem
> framework") moved the the sunxi SID driver to a new framework, but left
> sunxi_defconfig with the depre
Hi,
Lee Jones schrieb am 17.11.2015 09:07:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Timo Sigurdsson wrote:
>
>> Commit 3d0b16a66c8a ("nvmem: sunxi: Move the SID driver to the nvmem
>> framework") moved the the sunxi SID driver to a new framework, but left
>> multi_v7_defconfig
Hi,
Krzysztof Kozlowski schrieb am 17.11.2015 09:21:
[...]
>>> > @@ -450,8 +431,7 @@ CONFIG_MEDIA_CAMERA_SUPPORT=y
>>> > CONFIG_MEDIA_CONTROLLER=y
>>> > CONFIG_VIDEO_V4L2_SUBDEV_API=y
>>> > CONFIG_MEDIA_USB_SUPPORT=y
>>> > -CONFIG_USB_VIDEO_CLASS=y
>>> > -CONFIG_USB_GSPCA=y
>>> >
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 17.11.2015, 11:10 +0900 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 17.11.2015 10:49, Timo Sigurdsson wrote:
> > Commit 3d0b16a66c8a ("nvmem: sunxi: Move the SID driver to the nvmem
> > framework") moved the the sunxi SID driver to a new framework, but le
_defconfig.
While at it, clean up sunxi_defconfig by generating a fresh file via
make sunxi_defconfig
make savedefconfig
While this moves around a few lines and removes unnecessary symbols,
it doesn't introduce any functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Timo Sigurdsson <public_tim...@silentcr
the driver
in multi_v7_defconfig.
While at it, clean up multi_v7_defconfig by generating a fresh file via
make multi_v7_defconfig
make savedefconfig
While this moves around a few lines and removes unnecessary symbols,
it doesn't introduce any functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Timo Sigurdsson &
Am Mittwoch, den 04.11.2015, 18:39 +0100 schrieb Timo Sigurdsson:
> Hi,
>
> since I have an extra A20 board that doesn't have a specific purpose at the
> moment, I thought I do some experiments with it and test performance and
> reliability (among other things).
> One of
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 04.11.2015, 11:07 -0800 schrieb null:
> By my tests, A20 with small heatsink can run 1Ghz 24/7 at 1.275mv with
> prolonged heavy load(emerge world, gentoo).
>
>
> Without heatsink, it unstable even at 0.8Ghz.
>
>
> my dmesg:
> [cpu_freq] INF: voltage = 1625mv
Hi,
since I have an extra A20 board that doesn't have a specific purpose at the
moment, I thought I do some experiments with it and test performance and
reliability (among other things).
One of my tests involved overclocking the board at stock voltage (1.4V) to see
what the board can do. So I
at the default voltages inherited by sun7i-a20.dtsi.
Signed-off-by: Timo Sigurdsson <public_tim...@silentcreek.de>
---
Changes since v2:
- (Re)Added board-specific OPP after Kevin Hilman reported problems with
the default voltages at lower frequencies
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20-bananapi.dt
Hi Kevin,
Hi Maxime,
Kevin Hilman schrieb am 07.10.2015 16:36:
> "Timo Sigurdsson" <public_tim...@silentcreek.de> writes:
>> I still think that the lower voltages may be the cause of your problem
>> with that specific board, so could you please test the attac
Hi Maxime,
Maxime Ripard schrieb am 07.10.2015 19:49:
> Hi Timo,
>
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 05:49:18PM +0200, Timo Sigurdsson wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>> Hi Maxime,
>>
>> Kevin Hilman schrieb am 07.10.2015 16:36:
>>
>> > "Timo Sigurdsson"
Hi Kevin,
Kevin Hilman schrieb am 24.09.2015 19:57:
> kernelci.org started finding boot faiulres[1] on bananapi linux-next
> around next-20150918, but it was only failing in some labs and not
> others. I finally bisected it down to this patch, which landed in
> linux-next in the form of
Hi Kevin,
Kevin Hilman schrieb am 25. Sept 2015 01:57:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Maxime Ripard
> <maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 06:18:25PM +0200, Timo Sigurdsson wrote:
>>> sun7i-a20-bananapi.dts doesn't contain reg
Hi Maxime,
Maxime Ripard schrieb am 03.08.2015 11:34:
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:03:52AM +0200, Timo Sigurdsson wrote:
Julian Calaby schrieb am 03.08.2015 06:22:
My only real objection here is are there boards that can go down to
0.9v and if so, won't this change make them less power
Hi Maxime,
Maxime Ripard schrieb am 03.08.2015 11:47:
What regulator provides the 3.3V regulator used in the rest of this DT
then (MMC, GMAC) ?
For GMAC, there is a reg_gmac_3v3 defined in sun7i-a20-bananapi.dts [1].
MMC uses reg_vcc3v3 included from sunxi-common-regulators.dtsi. Am I
missing
Hi Maxime,
Maxime Ripard schrieb am 03.08.2015 11:13:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 09:23:06PM +0200, Timo Sigurdsson wrote:
sun7i-a20.dtsi contains an cpufreq operating point at 0.9 volts. Most A20
boards
(or all?), however, do not allow the voltage to go below 1.0V. Thus, raise
the
voltage
stable across all SoCs and boards out there.
Signed-off-by: Timo Sigurdsson public_tim...@silentcreek.de
---
Changes since v1:
- Fixed checkpatch warnings
- Changed the commit message and title to clarify that this is not a
board-specific issue, but rather a limitation by the SoC
---
arch/arm/boot
Hi again,
Julian Calaby schrieb am 03.08.2015 06:22:
My only real objection here is are there boards that can go down to
0.9v and if so, won't this change make them less power efficient in
the almost-idle case? And are those power savings enough to justify
not accepting this patch?
It will
Hi Julian,
Julian Calaby schrieb am 03.08.2015 01:35:
sun7i-a20.dtsi contains an cpufreq operating point at 0.9 volts. Most A20
boards
(or all?), however, do not allow the voltage to go below 1.0V. Thus, raise
the
voltage for the lowest operating point to 1.0V so all boards can actually use
sun7i-a20-bananapi.dts doesn't contain regulator nodes for the AXP209 PMU
driver, so add them to allow for voltage-scaling with cpufreq-dt.
Signed-off-by: Timo Sigurdsson public_tim...@silentcreek.de
---
Changes since v1 (RFC):
- Dropped the changes to the cpufreq operating points and renamed
sun7i-a20.dtsi contains an cpufreq operating point at 0.9 volts. Most A20 boards
(or all?), however, do not allow the voltage to go below 1.0V. Thus, raise the
voltage for the lowest operating point to 1.0V so all boards can actually use
it.
Signed-off-by: Timo Sigurdsson public_tim
Hi Stefan,
you didn't include me in your answer, hence the late reply...
Stefan Monnier schrieb am 29.07.2015 02:02:
IMHO for a common maximum opp that's a good approach. But for the lowest
frequency setting, it would seem more logical to me, to raise the voltage
to a point where all boards
Hi,
Hans de Goede schrieb am 27.07.2015 14:43:
I've a simular patch here:
https://github.com/jwrdegoede/linux-sunxi/commit/6a30b7d5be6012b81e5e1439a444e41c0ac1afc1
I did not submit this upstream yet as it is part of a series to enable the
otg
controller on the bananapi which needs
Hi,
Chen-Yu Tsai schrieb am 27.07.2015 15:14:
ChenYu (in the CC), since you did most of the original work here, do
you know why we have an op at 0.9 volt, but none of our boards allow the
voltage to go that low in the regulator settings ?
I'm on vacation now, so apologies for the bad
Hi,
Maxime Ripard schrieb am 28.07.2015 14:49:
I don't feel like holding patches that were posted before you did
because you did them some time ago and never submitted them is
reasonnable and / or encouraging for new submitters of patches.
I'd really like to get more sunxi-people
Hi,
Maxime Ripard schrieb am 28.07.2015 14:55:
IMHO for a common maximum opp that's a good approach. But for the lowest
frequency setting, it would seem more logical to me, to raise the voltage
to a point where all boards will run fine with them, unless those boards
cannot handle the
?
Signed-off-by: Timo Sigurdsson public_tim...@silentcreek.de
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20-bananapi.dts | 47 +---
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20-bananapi.dts
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20-bananapi.dts
index
34 matches
Mail list logo
