[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cfde61f1-5581-23b8-bd5b-f2a1875ec4ae@collabora.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:24:11 +0200
From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To: Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...gle.com>,
Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com>
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Tim Chang <jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com>, roger.lu@...iatek.com,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 10/15] cpufreq: mediatek: Add counter to prevent
infinite loop when tracking voltage
Il 15/04/22 08:14, Hsin-Yi Wang ha scritto:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 1:59 PM Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com> wrote:
>>
>> To prevent infinite loop when tracking voltage, we calculate the maximum
>> value for each platform data.
>> We assume min voltage is 0 and tracking target voltage using
>> min_volt_shift for each iteration.
>> The retry_max is 3 times of expeted iteration count.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com>
I'm sorry Rex, but this commit has to be squashed with 09/15, as the logic is
that each commit has to be acceptable, and 09/15 is not, without this fix.
Besides, as Hsin-Yi suggested, calculating this every time may hit performance,
but at the same time I don't want to lose this explicit calculation...
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
>> index cc44a7a9427a..d4c00237e862 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -86,6 +86,16 @@ static int mtk_cpufreq_voltage_tracking(struct mtk_cpu_dvfs_info *info,
>> struct regulator *proc_reg = info->proc_reg;
>> struct regulator *sram_reg = info->sram_reg;
>> int pre_vproc, pre_vsram, new_vsram, vsram, vproc, ret;
>> + int retry_max;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * We assume min voltage is 0 and tracking target voltage using
>> + * min_volt_shift for each iteration.
>> + * The retry_max is 3 times of expeted iteration count.
>> + */
>> + retry_max = 3 * DIV_ROUND_UP(max(info->soc_data->sram_max_volt,
>> + info->soc_data->proc_max_volt),
>> + info->soc_data->min_volt_shift);
>
> mtk_cpufreq_voltage_tracking() will be called very frequently.
> retry_max is the same every time mtk_cpufreq_voltage_tracking() is
> called. Is it better to calculate before and store in
> mtk_cpu_dvfs_info?
>
...so I agree with this solution: perhaps you can add a "vtrack_max" variable to
mtk_cpu_dvfs_info as suggested, and fill in that one in function
mtk_cpu_dvfs_info_init(), where we effectively initialize all-the-things.
Cheers,
Angelo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists