[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z5iQ02AIDalsUXe-@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 09:09:55 +0100
From: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, ionela.voinescu@....com,
sudeep.holla@....com, will@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
rafael@...nel.org, sumitg@...dia.com, yang@...amperecomputing.com,
vanshikonda@...amperecomputing.com, lihuisong@...wei.com,
zhanjie9@...ilicon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] cpufreq: Allow arch_freq_get_on_cpu to return an
error
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 09:03:33AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23-01-25, 22:45, Beata Michalska wrote:
> > That would mean we are opting for presenting '0' value (whatever that means)
> > instead of trying alternative ways of getting 'current' frequency ?
> > This is still the scaling_cur_freq.
>
> A return value of 0 should typically mean something went wrong
> somewhere and didn't return the right value to us.
If smth goes wrong, an error should be returned, shoulnd't it?
>
> - For the print message, I think we should just print the value
> instead of UNKNOWN. Let the user / developer decide what to do with
> it.
Are you refering to the x86 show_cpuinfo behaviour altered by this patch ?
>
> - As for trying other mechanism to find the frequency now, maybe you
> are right and looking for an alternate way is the right way to go.
> And that would be consistent with existing behavior too.
>
That would mean that changes to show_scaling_cur_freq are fine ?
Just trying to clarify things.
Thank you.
---
BR
Beata
> --
> viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists