On 1 February 2017 at 15:44, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:53:01 AM Markus Mayer wrote: >> On 5 January 2017 at 20:11, Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On 19-12-16, 12:10, Markus Mayer wrote: >> >> From: Markus Mayer <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> >> --- >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> >> 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 was only thinking 4.10, because it's a fix for an existing driver. But I am not complaining if it goes into 4.11. >> 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. Clearly, I didn't check there, my apologies. Regards, -Markus
