[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221109110831.lngwmwyjqp4qj73r@bogus>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 11:08:31 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
andersson@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, rafael@...nel.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, johan@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Add CPU clock provider support
On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 01:19:08PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
[...]
> qcom_cpufreq_hw_get() returns the frequency that got programmed by the cpufreq
> core. But that frequency is not necessarily the one that gets delivered to the
> CPU cores because the EPSS/OSM hardware block may vary the frequency after the
> DCVS operation.
>
> So this frequency is the final one that gets delivered to the CPU cores.
>
OK, thanks for the info. Just wondering if there is any issue making
qcom_cpufreq_hw_get() return this value instead of all these complexity.
I think the DT binding is too confusing as cpufreq-dt uses that to manage
DVFS which this one uses it.
If possible we should just make cpufreq_get(cpu) return the value you need
and use the same where ever you need. Sorry if I am missing something obvious
but I am struggling to see that.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists