Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:09:45 +0800 | From | Wang Weidong <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH] acpi-cpufreq: get the cur_freq from acpi_processor_performance states |
| |
On 2014/9/28 4:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, September 27, 2014 01:32:59 PM Wang Weidong wrote: >> On 2014/9/27 7:21, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 21, 2014 01:55:15 PM Wang Weidong wrote: >>>> As the initialized freq_tables maybe different from the p-states >>>> values, so the array index is different as well. >>>> >>>> p-states value: [2400 2400 2000 ...], while the freq_tables: >>>> [2400 2000 ... CPUFREQ_TABLE_END]. After setted the freqs 2000, >>>> the perf->state is 3 while the freqs_table's index should be 2. >>>> So when call the get_cur_freq_on_cpu, the freqs value we get >>>> is 2400. >>>> >>>> So, fix the problem with the correct tables. >>> >>> What you're saying is basically that freq_table and perf->states >>> diverge at one point. Shouldn't we re-generate freq_table in that >>> case instead of fixing up get_cur_freq_on_cpu() only in a quite >>> indirect way? >>> >> Hi Rafael, >> >> Thanks for your reply. >> >> You mean that we should re-generate the freq_table in that case? >> Could we fix the table init like this: >> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c >> @@ -779,7 +779,7 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) >> >> /* table init */ >> for (i = 0; i < perf->state_count; i++) { >> - if (i > 0 && perf->states[i].core_frequency >= >> + if (i > 0 && perf->states[i].core_frequency > >> data->freq_table[valid_states-1].frequency / 1000) >> continue; >> >> when the value is same, we just keep the value into the freq_table. > > That would only be OK if it is guaranteed that the set of available > states hasn't changed, which I'm not sure is the case. > > Rafael >
Yep, ACPI maybe will dynamic to report the states to the OS . So I should consider it again.
Regards, Wang > > . >
| |