On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 01:03:10PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 12:39 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:42:20AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 11:31 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 08-02-19, 11:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > There are cpufreq driver suspend and resume callbacks, maybe use them? > > > > > > > > > > The driver could do the I2C transactions in its suspend/resume > > > > > callbacks and do nothing in online/offline if those are part of > > > > > system-wide suspend/resume. > > > > > > > > These are per-policy things that we need to do, not sure if driver > > > > suspend/resume is a good place for that. It is more for a case where > > > > CPU 0-3 are in one policy and 4-7 in another. Now 1-7 are > > > > hot-unplugged during system suspend and hotplugged later on. This is > > > > more like complete removal/addition of devices instead of > > > > suspend/resume. > > > > > > No, it isn't. We don't remove devices on offline. We migrate stuff > > > away from them and (opportunistically) power them down. > > > > > > If this is system suspend, the driver kind of knows that offline will > > > take place, so it can prepare for it. Likewise, when online takes > > > place during system-wide resume, it generally is known that this is > > > system-wide resume (there is a flag to indicate that in CPU hotplug), > > > it can be "smart" and avoid accessing suspended devices. Deferring > > > the frequency set up until the driver resume time should do the trick > > > I suppose. > > > > I agree. The reason we don't see this generally on boot is because all > > the CPUs are brought online before CPUfreq is initialised. While during > > system suspend, we call cpufreq_online which in turn calls ->init in > > the hotplug state machine. > > > > So as Rafael suggests we need to do some trick, but can it be done in > > the core itself ? I may be missing something, but how about the patch > > below: > > > > Regards, > > Sudeep > > > > -- > > diff --git i/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c w/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > index e35a886e00bc..7d8b0b99f91d 100644 > > --- i/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > +++ w/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > @@ -1241,7 +1241,8 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) > > policy->max = policy->user_policy.max; > > } > > > > - if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) { > > + if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy && > > + !cpufreq_suspended) { > > policy->cur = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu); > > if (!policy->cur) { > > pr_err("%s: ->get() failed\n", __func__); > > It looks like we need to skip the "initial freq check" block below. >
Indeed, copy pasted an earlier version of diff. I found that I even used a goto label wrong which I fixed along with the additional check in "initial freq check" when I tried to compile :). > Also this doesn't really help the case when the driver ->init() messes > up with things. > Yes, in that case additional logic in the driver also needed. I am fine if we enforce driver to deal with this issue, but was thinking if we can make it generic. Also I was just trying to avoid adding _suspend/resume to driver just to avoid this issue. -- Regards, Sudeep