[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9242eecc-6550-ea45-1ee6-1b75b48e8c0d@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 09:04:33 +0800
From: Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
<Souvik.Chakravarty@....com>, <Thanu.Rangarajan@....com>,
<Sudeep.Holla@....com>, <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
<john.garry@...wei.com>, <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: Add SW BOOST support for drivers without
frequency table
Hi Viresh,
Thanks for your reply !
On 2020/5/18 15:53, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Sorry for the delay from my side in replying to this thread.
>
> On 15-05-20, 09:49, Xiongfeng Wang wrote:
>> On 2020/5/14 22:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 11:11:03 AM CEST Xiongfeng Wang wrote:
>>>> Software-managed BOOST get the boost frequency by check the flag
>>>> CPUFREQ_BOOST_FREQ at driver's frequency table. But some cpufreq driver
>>>> don't have frequency table and use other methods to get the frequency
>>>> range, such CPPC cpufreq driver.
>>>>
>>>> To add SW BOOST support for drivers without frequency table, we add
>>>> members in 'cpufreq_policy.cpufreq_cpuinfo' to record the max frequency
>>>> of boost mode and non-boost mode. The cpufreq driver initialize these two
>>>> members when probing.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 23 +++++++++++++++--------
>>>> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 2 ++
>>>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> index 475fb1b..a299426 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> @@ -2508,15 +2508,22 @@ static int cpufreq_boost_set_sw(int state)
>>>> int ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> for_each_active_policy(policy) {
>>>> - if (!policy->freq_table)
>>>> - continue;
>>>> -
>>>> - ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy,
>>>> + if (policy->freq_table) {
>>>> + ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy,
>>>> policy->freq_table);
>>>> - if (ret) {
>>>> - pr_err("%s: Policy frequency update failed\n",
>>>> - __func__);
>>>> - break;
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>> + pr_err("%s: Policy frequency update failed\n",
>>>> + __func__);
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> + } else if (policy->cpuinfo.boost_max_freq) {
>>>> + if (state)
>>>> + policy->max = policy->cpuinfo.boost_max_freq;
>>>> + else
>>>> + policy->max = policy->cpuinfo.nonboost_max_freq;
>>>> + policy->cpuinfo.max_freq = policy->max;
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + continue;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Why do you need to update this function?
>>
>> My original thought is to reuse the current SW BOOST code as possible, but this
>> seems to change the cpufreq core too much.
>>
>> Thanks for your advice. This is better. I will provide a '->set_boost' callback
>> for CPPC driver. But I will need to export 'cpufreq_policy_list' and make the
>> macro 'for_each_active_policy' public.
>
> This can and should be avoided, I will rather move the for-each-policy
> loop in cpufreq_boost_trigger_state() and call ->set_boost() for each
> policy and pass policy as argument as well. You would be required to
> update existing users of sw boost.
Thanks for your advice. It's a good idea. I will change it in the next version.
Thanks,
Xiongfeng
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists