[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200618080833.GA20559@bogus>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 09:08:33 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Nicola Mazzucato <nicola.mazzucato@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
lukasz.luba@....com, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: arm_scmi: Set fast_switch_possible
conditionally
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:44:20AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-06-20, 13:47, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > This is first step towards avoiding polling based cpufreq set if firmware
> > has fast access registers that bypass normal mailbox based messaging.
> >
> > If you happy with this and provide ack, I will take this along with scmi
> > changes via ARM SoC. Hope that is fine by you.
>
> Sudeep,
>
> I am not sure how it concerns me frankly :)
>
Sorry I wasn't clear.
> AFAICT, this is enabling fast switch based on some mechanism (internal
> to scmi) and so either the cpufreq driver will have fast-switch
> enabled or not, and both are fine by the cpufreq core.
>
Indeed.
> And so I am confused on why my Ack is important here :)
>
Generally ARM SoC team expects a stamp from other subsystem maintainers
if they are pulling it. I understand there is more firmware aspect than
cpufreq aspect here, but still we may need your stamp to this 😉 for
logistic reasons.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists