Hi Quentin, On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:13:18AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > On Tuesday 05 Feb 2019 at 09:52:25 (-0800), Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > Try and register an Energy Model from mediatek-cpufreq to allow > > interested subsystems like the task scheduler to use the provided > > information. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > > b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > > index eb8920d398181..e6168ee582783 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > > @@ -460,6 +460,8 @@ static int mtk_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy > > *policy) > > return ret; > > } > > > > + dev_pm_opp_of_register_em(policy->cpus); > > I'm not familiar with the mediatek-cpufreq driver so bear with me, but > the code sets policy->cpus just below here. Is there any particular > reason for not using that in PM_EM ?
You are prefectly right, I missed the obvious and didn't get my hands on hardware yet for testing. So much for screwing up a one-liner ... I'll send a fix. I thought Viresh already applied the patch, however in opp/linux-next I currently only see the other one of this series for qcom-hw, so it seems sending a new version rather than a fix-up patch is the way to go. Thanks for the review! > > cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, &info->cpus); > > policy->freq_table = freq_table; > > policy->driver_data = info; > > Thanks, > Quentin
