On 02-03-16, 03:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1772,6 +1772,39 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_unregister_notifie
> * GOVERNORS *
> *********************************************************************/
>
> +/**
> + * cpufreq_driver_fast_switch - Carry out a fast CPU frequency switch.
> + * @policy: cpufreq policy to switch the frequency for.
> + * @target_freq: New frequency to set (may be approximate).
> + * @relation: Relation to use for frequency selection.
> + *
> + * Carry out a fast frequency switch from interrupt context.
> + *
> + * This function must not be called if policy->fast_switch_possible is unset.
> + *
> + * Governors calling this function must guarantee that it will never be
> invoked
> + * twice in parallel for the same policy and that it will never be called in
> + * parallel with either ->target() or ->target_index() for the same policy.
> + *
> + * If CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID is returned by the driver's ->fast_switch()
> + * callback, the hardware configuration must be preserved.
> + */
> +void cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + unsigned int target_freq, unsigned int relation)
> +{
> + unsigned int freq;
> +
> + if (target_freq == policy->cur)
Maybe an unlikely() here ?
> + return;
> +
> + freq = cpufreq_driver->fast_switch(policy, target_freq, relation);
> + if (freq != CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID) {
> + policy->cur = freq;
Hmm.. What will happen to the code relying on the cpufreq-notifiers
now ?
> + trace_cpu_frequency(freq, smp_processor_id());
> + }
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_driver_fast_switch);
--
viresh
