lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 02/10] cpufreq: provide data for frequency-invariant load-tracking support
Date
On Friday, July 07, 2017 06:06:30 PM Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 07/07/17 17:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Dietmar Eggemann
> > <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
> >> On 06/07/17 11:40, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >>> On 06-07-17, 10:49, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> So what about I call arch_set_freq_scale() in __cpufreq_notify_transition() in the
> >> CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE case for slow-switching and in cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() for
> >> fast-switching?
> >
> > Why don't you do this in drivers instead of in the core?
> >
> > Ultimately, the driver knows what frequency it has requested, so why
> > can't it call arch_set_freq_scale()?
>
> That's correct but for arm/arm64 we have a lot of different cpufreq
> drivers to deal with. And doing this call to arch_set_freq_scale() once
> in the cpufreq core will cover them all.
>
> [...]

I'm sort of wondering how many is "a lot" really. For instance, do you really
want all of the existing ARM platforms to use the new stuff even though
it may regress things there in principle?

Anyway, if everyone agrees that doing it in the core is the way to go (Peter?),
why don't you introduce a __weak function for setting policy->cur and
override it from your arch so as to call arch_set_freq_scale() from there?

Thanks,
Rafael

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-08 14:17    [W:0.112 / U:147.456 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site