lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Move driver initialisation earlier
Hi Daniel

On Tuesday 17 Sep 2019 at 14:47:22 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> On 17/09/2019 11:34, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 04:02:34AM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> >> Allow qcom-hw driver to initialise right after the cpufreq and thermal
> >> subsystems are initialised in core_initcall so we get earlier access to
> >> thermal mitigation.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> >> index 4b0b50403901..04676cc82ba6 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> >> @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ static int __init qcom_cpufreq_hw_init(void)
> >> {
> >> return platform_driver_register(&qcom_cpufreq_hw_driver);
> >> }
> >> -device_initcall(qcom_cpufreq_hw_init);
> >> +postcore_initcall(qcom_cpufreq_hw_init);
> >
> > I am fine with core framework initcall pushed to earlier initcall levels
> > if required, but for individual/platform specific drivers I am not so
> > happy to see that.
> >
> > This goes against the grand plan of single common kernel strategy by
> > Android moving all drivers as modules. We might decide to make this
> > a module.
>
> module = mounted file system = very late initialization
>
> Is that the plan? Force every driver to load too late?
>
> There are core drivers which must be loaded as soon as possible. If the
> qcom driver is one of them, then what is the problem?
>
> "The grand plan" will have to solve this first before doing the module
> move.
>
> > Also there are few cpufreq drivers that are modules. Will
> > they have issues ? If not, why do we need this change at all.
>
> Because some boards don't have thermal issues with the cpufreq drivers
> as module, other boards have.
>
> > Needing
> > thermal mitigation during boot this earlier is still too much of
> > expectation, I would rather boot slowly than relying on this feature.
>
> And what if we want to boot faster? The boot time is one of a key point
> of benchmark.

Could you share test results for this ? It'd be nice to see what if
the gains in boot time outweight the additional pain for android folks
...

Thanks,
Quentin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-17 16:25    [W:0.096 / U:3.284 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site