Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: brcmstb-avs-cpufreq: properly retrieve P-state upon suspend | Date | Thu, 02 Feb 2017 00:44:44 +0100 |
| |
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:53:01 AM Markus Mayer wrote: > On 5 January 2017 at 20:11, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 19-12-16, 12:10, Markus Mayer wrote: > >> From: Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com> > >> > >> The AVS GET_PMAP command does return a P-state along with the P-map > >> information. However, that P-state is the initial P-state when the > >> P-map was first downloaded to AVS. It is *not* the current P-state. > >> > >> Therefore, we explicitly retrieve the P-state using the GET_PSTATE > >> command. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 13 ++++++++++++- > >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > >> index 2c6e325..c943606 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > >> @@ -784,8 +784,19 @@ static int brcm_avs_target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > >> static int brcm_avs_suspend(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > >> { > >> struct private_data *priv = policy->driver_data; > >> + int ret; > >> + > >> + ret = brcm_avs_get_pmap(priv, &priv->pmap); > >> + if (ret) > >> + return ret; > >> > >> - return brcm_avs_get_pmap(priv, &priv->pmap); > >> + /* > >> + * We can't use the P-state returned by brcm_avs_get_pmap(), since > >> + * that's the initial P-state from when the P-map was downloaded to the > >> + * AVS co-processor, not necessarily the P-state we are running at now. > >> + * So, we get the current P-state explicitly. > >> + */ > >> + return brcm_avs_get_pstate(priv, &priv->pmap.state); > >> } > >> > >> static int brcm_avs_resume(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > Just wanted to follow up to see if this has been or will be picked up > for 4.10?
For 4.10? No way.
> I had a quick poke around some trees and did not see it > there.
I'm not sure which trees you checked, but it is there in my linux-next branch.
Thanks, Rafael
|  |