[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFivqm+4Mir8hgGw-HMLdW=dBYuUw1wJ4xG4a+WAtqfG1vYKXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 21:58:04 -0700
From: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...gle.com>
To: Jie Zhan <zhanjie9@...ilicon.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Bowen Yu <yubowen8@...wei.com>, rafael@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com,
jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, lihuisong@...wei.com, zhenglifeng1@...wei.com,
Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>, Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: CPPC: Fix error handling in cppc_scale_freq_workfn()
On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 at 18:12, Prashant Malani <pmalani@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2025 at 23:21, Jie Zhan <zhanjie9@...ilicon.com> wrote
> > On 01/08/2025 16:58, Prashant Malani wrote:
> > > This begs the question: why is this work function being scheduled
> > > for CPUs that are in reset or offline/powered-down at all?
> > > IANAE but it sounds like it would be better to add logic to ensure this
> > > work function doesn't get scheduled/executed for CPUs that
> > > are truly offline/powered-down or in reset.
> > Yeah good question. We may discuss that on your thread.
>
> OK.
> Quickly looking around, it sounds having in the CPPC tick function [1]
> might be a better option (one probably doesn't want to lift it beyond the
> CPPC layer, since other drivers might have different behaviour).
> One can add a cpu_online/cpu_enabled check there.
Fixed link:
[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13/source/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c#L125
Powered by blists - more mailing lists