lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 3/8] PM / devfreq: Use the available min/max frequency
On 2017년 10월 18일 10:31, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017년 10월 17일 23:43, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com> wrote:
>>> The commit a76caf55e5b35 ("thermal: Add devfreq cooling") is able
>>> to disable OPP as a cooling device. In result, both update_devfreq()
>>> and {min|max}_freq_show() have to consider the 'opp->available'
>>> status of each OPP.
>>>
>>> So, this patch adds the 'scaling_{min|max}_freq' to struct devfreq
>>> in order to indicate the available mininum and maximum frequency
>>> by adjusting OPP interface such as dev_pm_opp_{disable|enable}().
>>> The 'scaling_{min|max}_freq' are used for on both update_devfreq()
>>> and {min|max}_freq_show().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>> include/linux/devfreq.h | 4 ++++
>>> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
>>> index b6ba24e5db0d..9de013ffeb67 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
>> []
>>> @@ -494,6 +499,19 @@ static int devfreq_notifier_call(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long type,
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> mutex_lock(&devfreq->lock);
>>> +
>>> + devfreq->scaling_min_freq = find_available_min_freq(devfreq);
>>> + if (!devfreq->scaling_min_freq) {
>>> + mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + devfreq->scaling_max_freq = find_available_max_freq(devfreq);
>>> + if (!devfreq->max_freq) {
>>
>> 1. s/max_freq/scaling/max_freq/ ??
>
> My mistake. The scaling_max_freq is right. I'll fix it.
>
>>
>> 2. what if thermal is not active or has never triggered any event and
>> the user has never stated max/min? (making scaling_*_freq zero)
>
>
> The devfreq-cooling.c of tmu uses the OPP interface
> and then OPP interface affect the scaling_min/max_freq of devfreq
> through dev_pm_opp_disable/enable(). So, even if 'thermal is not active
> or has never triggered any event', devfreq will use the OPP interface
> as a mandatory.
>
> In result, I think that devfreq should maintain the correct frequency
> of scaling_min/max_freq indicating the 'limit minimum/maximum frequency
> requested by OPP interface' instead of zero.
>
> So, I'll change the description of scaling_min/max_freq as following:
> (by devfreq-cooling -> by OPP interface)
> On v4:
> + * @scaling_min_freq: Limit minimum frequency requested by devfreq-cooling
> + * @scaling_max_freq: Limit maximum frequency requested by devfreq-cooling
>
> On v5:
> + * @scaling_min_freq: Limit minimum frequency requested by OPP interface
> + * @scaling_max_freq: Limit maximum frequency requested by OPP interface
>
>
> And, this patch showed the wrong value of min/max_freq_show() by my mistake.
> I showed the 'min/max_freq' directly through min/max_freq_show()
> without comparing with scaling_min/max_freq. So, I'll fix this issue as following:
> ---------------
> On v5:
> static ssize_t min_freq_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> char *buf)
> {
> - return sprintf(buf, "%lu\n", to_devfreq(dev)->min_freq);
> + struct devfreq *df = to_devfreq(dev);
> +
> + return sprintf(buf, "%lu\n", MAX(df->scaling_min_freq, df->min_freq));
> }
>
> static ssize_t max_freq_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> @@ -1161,7 +1183,9 @@ static ssize_t max_freq_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> static ssize_t max_freq_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> char *buf)
> {
> - return sprintf(buf, "%lu\n", to_devfreq(dev)->max_freq);
> + struct devfreq *df = to_devfreq(dev);
> +
> + return sprintf(buf, "%lu\n", MIN(df->scaling_max_freq, df->max_freq));
> ---------------

If you agree my opinion, I'll send v5 patchset right now
because if patch3 gets the review, everything is done without patch8.
As I replied, I'll drop the patch8 from this patchset.

>
>
>>
>>> + mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> ret = update_devfreq(devfreq);
>>> mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock);
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-22 17:08    [W:0.057 / U:26.472 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site