[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <61afac10-b434-4e39-8c49-c220add4bd8e@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 10:01:24 +0000
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] PM: EM: Add min/max available performance state
limits
On 10/30/24 08:48, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 10/29/24 18:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 10:43 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>>>
[snip]
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(em_update_performance_limits);
>>
>> It would be good to have at least one caller of this function in the
>> tree.
>
> Yes, I know, but we had delays with the SCMI cpufreq to get the
> notifications support, which are sent from FW...
>
> The patch using this API was part of v1 but with assumption that
> those SCMI notifications are merged.
>
> The patch v1 for the SCMI cpufreq driver [1].
>
> In that v1 cover letter I mentioned that the 2nd patch depends
> on notifications [2].
>
> I will have to work with Cristian on that notification in SCMI
> then this API will be used. I can see that it stuck for a while
> in v5. Let me sort that out (probably not in this merge window
> though).
Just to link the effort which has been started into that direction:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ab36709d-a181-4621-a8e5-0ef38b80186b@arm.com/
>
> Can we do it this way?
>
> Regards,
> Lukasz
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240403162315.1458337-3-lukasz.luba@arm.com/
> [2]
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240403162315.1458337-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com/
> [3]
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240603192654.2167620-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists