[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250219054543.4xt4tixsauwoqpst@vireshk-i7>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:15:43 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Mark Tseng <chun-jen.tseng@...iatek.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
linux-pm@...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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] cpufreq: mediatek: Add CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION
flag
On 14-02-25, 15:43, Mark Tseng wrote:
> Add CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION flages for cpufreq policy because some of
> process will get CPU frequency by cpufreq sysfs node. It may get wrong
> frequency then call cpufreq_out_of_sync() to fixed frequency.
That's not why CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION is used. It is used only for the cases
where the target()/target_index() callback defers the work to some other entity
(like a workqueue) and it is not guaranteed that the frequency will be changed
before these helpers return.
I don't think your patch is required.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists