[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2a9bfa53-31b2-b44a-0bd5-07bcc344a466@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:03:29 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Generic cpufreq governor
On 28/07/18 04:56, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> Many CPU architectures have caches that can scale independent of the CPUs.
> Frequency scaling of the caches is necessary to make sure the cache is not
> a performance bottleneck that leads to poor performance and power. The same
> idea applies for RAM/DDR.
>
> To achieve this, this patch adds a generic devfreq governor that can listen
> to the frequency transitions of each CPU frequency domain and then adjusts
> the frequency of the cache (or any devfreq device) based on the frequency
> of the CPUs.
>
> To decide the frequency of the device, the governor does one of the
> following:
>
> * Uses a CPU frequency to device frequency mapping table
> - Either one mapping table used for all CPU freq policies (typically used
> for system with homogeneous cores/clusters that have the same OPPs.
> - One mapping table per CPU freq policy (typically used for ASMP systems
> with heterogeneous CPUs with different OPPs)
>
> OR
>
> * Scales the device frequency in proportion to the CPU frequency. So, if
> the CPUs are running at their max frequency, the device runs at its max
> frequency. If the CPUs are running at their min frequency, the device
> runs at its min frequency. And interpolated for frequencies in between.
>
Is this solution for the old generation of SDM ?
I have seen newer ones have some kind of firmware interface/hardware to
deal with CPUFreq. Do you need this solution for them too ?
If yes, why ? IMO firmware can arbitrate various requests for frequency
scaling and do the *right thing* for the platform. Having OSPM sending
separate requests for such bus/interconnect might end up with conflicts.
No ?
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists