[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1712062020200.11844@math.ut.ee>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 20:21:34 +0200 (EET)
From: Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"4 . 14+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: longhaul: Set transition_delay_us to 20 ms
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/longhaul.c b/drivers/cpufreq/longhaul.c
> >> > index c46a12df40dd..56eafcb07859 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/longhaul.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/longhaul.c
> >> > @@ -894,7 +894,7 @@ static int longhaul_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >> > if ((longhaul_version != TYPE_LONGHAUL_V1) && (scale_voltage != 0))
> >> > longhaul_setup_voltagescaling();
> >> >
> >> > - policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = 200000; /* nsec */
> >> > + policy->transition_delay_us = 20000; /* usec */
> >> >
> >> > return cpufreq_table_validate_and_show(policy, longhaul_table);
> >> > }
> >>
> >> This patch also works on my EPIA-M board - tested 10+ times.
> >
> > An on the last try just after sending the mail, it hung again in the
> > same way as before - so maybe 20 is on the edge of being good.
>
> OK, so can you please try to modify the patch to set
> transition_delay_us to 30000, say, and see if that's reliable?
30000 was not reliable.
I created root cron job
@reboot sleep 120; /sbin/reboot
and by the evening it was dead again.
Will try 50000 tomorrow.
--
Meelis Roos (mroos@...ux.ee
Powered by blists - more mailing lists