[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9751622e-f969-c025-2a39-efcc9a612392@collabora.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:24:19 +0200
From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To: Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com>, rafael@...nel.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
matthias.bgg@...il.com
Cc: jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com, roger.lu@...iatek.com,
hsinyi@...gle.com, 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,
"Andrew-sh . Cheng" <andrew-sh.cheng@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 04/15] cpufreq: mediatek: Record previous target vproc
value
Il 15/04/22 07:59, Rex-BC Chen ha scritto:
> From: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com>
>
> We found the buck voltage may not be exactly the same with what we set
> because CPU may share the same buck with other module.
> Therefore, we need to record the previous desired value instead of reading
> it from regulators.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew-sh.Cheng <andrew-sh.cheng@...iatek.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> index ff27f77e8ee6..fa8b193bf27b 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ struct mtk_cpu_dvfs_info {
> struct list_head list_head;
> int intermediate_voltage;
> bool need_voltage_tracking;
> + int pre_vproc;
> };
>
> static LIST_HEAD(dvfs_info_list);
> @@ -191,11 +192,17 @@ static int mtk_cpufreq_voltage_tracking(struct mtk_cpu_dvfs_info *info,
>
> static int mtk_cpufreq_set_voltage(struct mtk_cpu_dvfs_info *info, int vproc)
> {
> + int ret;
> +
> if (info->need_voltage_tracking)
> - return mtk_cpufreq_voltage_tracking(info, vproc);
> + ret = mtk_cpufreq_voltage_tracking(info, vproc);
> else
> - return regulator_set_voltage(info->proc_reg, vproc,
> - vproc + VOLT_TOL);
> + ret = regulator_set_voltage(info->proc_reg, vproc,
> + MAX_VOLT_LIMIT);
> + if (!ret)
> + info->pre_vproc = vproc;
> +
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static int mtk_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> @@ -213,7 +220,9 @@ static int mtk_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> inter_vproc = info->intermediate_voltage;
>
> pre_freq_hz = clk_get_rate(cpu_clk);
> - pre_vproc = regulator_get_voltage(info->proc_reg);
> + pre_vproc = info->pre_vproc;
> + if (pre_vproc <= 0)
> + pre_vproc = regulator_get_voltage(info->proc_reg);
I would do it like that, instead:
if (unlikely(info->pre_vproc <= 0))
pre_vproc = regulator_get_voltage(info->proc_reg);
else
pre_vproc = info->pre_vproc;
....as even though it is indeed possible that info->pre_vproc is <= 0, it is
very unlikely to happen ;-)
This also solves a 'pre_vproc' double assignment issue, by the way.
Cheers,
Angelo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists