linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 7/9] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Allow getting the maximum transition latency for OPPs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 8 Jul 2021 14:11:17 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>
Cc:     bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, agross@...nel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        amit.kucheria@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org, marijn.suijten@...ainline.org,
        martin.botka@...ainline.org, jami.kettunen@...ainline.org,
        paul.bouchara@...ainline.org,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, jeffrey.l.hugo@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 7/9] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Allow getting the maximum
 transition latency for OPPs

On 01-07-21, 12:57, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> In order to fine-tune the frequency scaling from various governors,
> allow to set a maximum transition latency from OPPs, which may be
> different depending on the SoC.

You are doing much more than just this, why ?

> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> index 54b79fe772b6..0b80c65a22a8 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> @@ -1331,6 +1331,7 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  	void __iomem *base;
>  	struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data;
>  	char fdom_resname[] = "freq-domainX";
> +	unsigned int transition_latency;
>  	int cpu_count, index, ret;
>  
>  	cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(policy->cpu);
> @@ -1381,22 +1382,31 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  	data->soc_data = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
>  	data->base = base;
>  	data->res = res;
> +	policy->driver_data = data;
>  
> -	/* HW should be in enabled state to proceed */
> -	if (!(readl_relaxed(base + data->soc_data->reg_enable) & 0x1)) {
> -		dev_err(dev, "Domain-%d cpufreq hardware not enabled\n", index);
> -		ret = -ENODEV;
> -		goto error;
> -	}
> -
> -	qcom_get_related_cpus(index, policy->cpus);
> +	cpu_count = qcom_get_related_cpus(index, policy->cpus);
>  	if (!cpumask_weight(policy->cpus)) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "Domain-%d failed to get related CPUs\n", index);
>  		ret = -ENOENT;
>  		goto error;
>  	}
>  
> -	policy->driver_data = data;
> +	if (!data->soc_data->uses_tz) {
> +		ret = qcom_cpufreq_hw_osm_setup(cpu_dev, policy,
> +						cpu_count, index);
> +		if (ret) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "Cannot setup the OSM for CPU%d: %d\n",
> +				policy->cpu, ret);
> +			goto error;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	/* HW should be in enabled state to proceed */
> +	if (!(readl_relaxed(base + data->soc_data->reg_enable) & 0x1)) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "Domain-%d cpufreq hardware not enabled\n", index);
> +		ret = -ENODEV;
> +		goto error;
> +	}

The commit log doesn't speak about any of the above.

>  
>  	ret = qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(cpu_dev, policy);
>  	if (ret) {
> @@ -1411,6 +1421,12 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  		goto error;
>  	}
>  
> +	transition_latency = dev_pm_opp_get_max_transition_latency(cpu_dev);
> +	if (!transition_latency)
> +		transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL;
> +
> +	policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = transition_latency;
> +
>  	dev_pm_opp_of_register_em(cpu_dev, policy->cpus);
>  
>  	if (policy_has_boost_freq(policy)) {
> @@ -1421,6 +1437,7 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  
>  	return 0;
>  error:
> +	policy->driver_data = NULL;
>  	kfree(data);
>  unmap_base:
>  	iounmap(base);
> -- 
> 2.32.0

-- 
viresh