[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180110041905.GC3335@vireshk-i7>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:49:05 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: scpi: remove arm_big_little dependency
On 09-01-18, 16:49, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> +static int
> +scpi_get_sharing_cpus(struct device *cpu_dev, struct cpumask *cpumask)
> {
> - return scpi_ops->get_transition_latency(cpu_dev);
> + int cpu, domain, tdomain;
> + struct device *tcpu_dev;
> +
> + domain = scpi_ops->device_domain_id(cpu_dev);
> + if (domain < 0)
> + return domain;
> +
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + if (cpu == cpu_dev->id)
> + continue;
> +
> + tcpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
> + if (!tcpu_dev)
> + continue;
> +
> + tdomain = scpi_ops->device_domain_id(tcpu_dev);
> + if (tdomain == domain)
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpumask);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> }
So this is the main thing you want to achieve ? i.e. get the
policy->cpus from scpi_ops, right ?
Why can't we update .init_opp_table() to include policy as a parameter
and let individual stub drivers update policy->cpus then ?
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists