[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y9fZ6GUzWsCMXzba@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 16:53:28 +0200
From: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>
To: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>, djakov@...nel.org
Cc: Mike Tipton <quic_mdtipton@...cinc.com>,
Vivek Aknurwar <quic_viveka@...cinc.com>, djakov@...nel.org,
quic_okukatla@...cinc.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"abel >> Philipp Zabel" <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
abelvesa@...nel.org, Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] interconnect: Skip call into provider if initial bw is
zero
On 23-01-23 22:58:49, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 23/01/2023 20:37, Mike Tipton wrote:
> >
> > This isn't actually changing it for all providers. Only for those that
> > define the get_bw() callback. Right now that's only qcom/msm8974 and
> > imx/imx. If get_bw() isn't defined, then icc_node_add() defaults to
> > INT_MAX. So, the logical behavior in that case is unchanged. Which means
> > this isn't even changing the behavior for rpmh yet, either.
>
> Yes that adds up.
>
> Looking at the commit for get_bw() for the 8974, I think this change would
> be OK with the intent of this commit
>
> commit 9caf2d956cfa254c6d89c5f4d7b3f8235d75b28f
> Author: Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@...aro.org>
> Date: Mon Nov 9 14:45:12 2020 +0200
>
> @Abel what effect will skipping pre->aggregation() have on i.MX ?
I don't think there is any impact on i.MX platforms.
Peng, any input?
>
> ---
> bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists