On 17 February 2014 14:13, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 02/14/2014 04:30 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> cpufreq_update_policy() is called from two places currently. From a workqueue
>> handled queued from cpufreq_bp_resume() for boot CPU and from
>> cpufreq_cpu_callback() whenever a CPU is added.
>>
>> The first one makes sure that boot CPU is running on the frequency present in
>> policy->cpu. But we don't really need a call from cpufreq_cpu_callback(),
>> because we always call cpufreq_driver->init() (which will set policy->cur
>> correctly) whenever first CPU of any policy is added back. And so every
>> policy
>> structure is guaranteed to have the right frequency in policy->cur.
>>
>
> This wording is slightly inaccurate. ->init() may or may not set policy->cur
> (for example, powernowk8 driver doesn't set it in the init routine)..
Its not the wording that is wrong but this particular driver then :)
This is what Documentation/cpu-drivers.txt says:
1.2 Per-CPU Initialization
Then, the driver must fill in the following values:
policy->cur The current operating frequency of
this CPU (if appropriate)
And so it is supposed to do it.
> But we set it for sure in __cpufreq_add_dev():
>
> 1117 if (cpufreq_driver->get) {
> 1118 policy->cur = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
> 1119 if (!policy->cur) {
> 1120 pr_err("%s: ->get() failed\n", __func__);
> 1121 goto err_get_freq;
> 1122 }
> 1123 }
Its just about removing that from drivers and doing it once in core :)
>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
>
> The reasoning and the code looks good to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
