[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1522977004.8366.11.camel@hxt-semitech.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 01:10:07 +0000
From: "Yang, Shunyong" <shunyong.yang@...-semitech.com>
To: "viresh.kumar@...aro.org" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Zheng, Joey" <yu.zheng@...-semitech.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: cppc_cpufreq: Initialize shared cpu's perf
capabilities
Hi, Kumar,
On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 16:06 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 04-04-18, 17:16, Shunyong Yang wrote:
> >
> > When multiple cpus are related in one cpufreq policy, the first
> > online
> > cpu will be chosen by default to handle cpufreq operations. Let's
> > take
> > cpu0 and cpu1 as an example.
> >
> > When cpu0 is offline, policy->cpu will be shifted to cpu1. Cpu1's
> > perf
> > capabilities should be initialized. Otherwise, perf capabilities
> > are 0s
> > and speed change can not take effect.
> >
> > This patch copies perf capabilities of the first online cpu to
> > other
> > shared cpus when policy shared type is CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ANY.
> >
> > Cc: Joey Zheng <yu.zheng@...-semitech.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Shunyong Yang <shunyong.yang@...-semitech.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > -Add unlikely in cpu comparison per Kumar's comments.
> > -Fix coding style per Kumar's comments.
> >
> > Changes in v1:
> > -Drop RFC tag,
> > The original RFC link,
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10299055/.
> >
> > This patch solves same issue as RFC above.
> >
> > Patch name is changed as code is too much different with RFC
> > above.
> >
> > -Remove extra init() per Viresh Kumar's comments and only handle
> > CPPC CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ANY case.
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > index 8f7b21a4d537..679e43b9c980 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > @@ -164,9 +164,20 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct
> > cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency =
> > cppc_get_transition_latency(cpu_num);
> > policy->shared_type = cpu->shared_type;
> >
> > - if (policy->shared_type == CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ANY)
> > + if (policy->shared_type == CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ANY) {
> > + int i;
> > +
> > cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, cpu->shared_cpu_map);
> > - else if (policy->shared_type == CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ALL) {
> > +
> > + for_each_cpu(i, policy->cpus) {
> > + if (unlikely(i == policy->cpu))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + memcpy(&all_cpu_data[i]->perf_caps,
> > + &cpu->perf_caps,
> > + sizeof(cpu->perf_caps));
> I think this can be written in two lines without violating the 80
> columns rule.
The memcpy() is split in three lines (the three "+"). And I rechecked
it by downloading from
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10322305/
and apply to code. The maximum column number is 59.
And I re-run checkpatch.pl and it passed.
I am not sure why it is over 80 columns in your tool.
>
> >
> > + }
> > + } else if (policy->shared_type == CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ALL)
> > {
> > /* Support only SW_ANY for now. */
> > pr_debug("Unsupported CPU co-ord type\n");
> > return -EFAULT;
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Thanks for your ACK.
Thanks.
Shunyong.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists