On 04-08-20, 11:44, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> On 8/4/20 11:38 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > I don't think doing it with help of firmware is the right thing to do
> > here then. For another platform we may not have a firmware which can
> > help us, we need something in the opp core itself for that. Lemme
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 10:33:02AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 8/5/2020 9:03 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 06:34:36PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> On 05-08-20, 12:04, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> >>> I know that Viresh is going to develop patches and improve these
>
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 06:34:36PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 05-08-20, 12:04, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> > I know that Viresh is going to develop patches and improve these
> > cpufreq stats framework. Maybe he also had this 'aggregation' in mind.
> > I will leave it him.
>
> I am only going to
On 8/4/20 6:27 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On 7/29/2020 8:12 AM, Lukasz Luba wrote:
Hi all,
The existing CPUFreq framework does not tracks the statistics when the
'fast switch' is used or when firmware changes the frequency independently
due to e.g. thermal reasons. However, the firmware
On 8/5/2020 9:03 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 06:34:36PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 05-08-20, 12:04, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>> I know that Viresh is going to develop patches and improve these
>>> cpufreq stats framework. Maybe he also had this 'aggregation' in mind.
>>>
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 10:19:23AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 7/31/2020 8:56 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:36:51AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> >>
> >> In this case I think we would have to create debugfs.
> >> Sudeep do you think these debugfs should be
On 05-08-20, 12:04, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> I know that Viresh is going to develop patches and improve these
> cpufreq stats framework. Maybe he also had this 'aggregation' in mind.
> I will leave it him.
I am only going to look at cpufreq's view of stats independently from
the firmware.
--
viresh
On 7/29/2020 8:12 AM, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The existing CPUFreq framework does not tracks the statistics when the
> 'fast switch' is used or when firmware changes the frequency independently
> due to e.g. thermal reasons. However, the firmware might track the frequency
> changes
On 7/31/2020 8:56 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:36:51AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>
>> In this case I think we would have to create debugfs.
>> Sudeep do you think these debugfs should be exposed from the protocol
>> layer:
>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
>
> I
On 8/4/20 11:38 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 04-08-20, 11:29, Lukasz Luba wrote:
On 8/4/20 6:35 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
IIUC, the only concern right now is to capture stats with fast switch ? Maybe we
can do something else in that case and brainstorm a bit..
Correct, the fast switch is the
On 04-08-20, 11:29, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> On 8/4/20 6:35 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > IIUC, the only concern right now is to capture stats with fast switch ?
> > Maybe we
> > can do something else in that case and brainstorm a bit..
>
> Correct, the fast switch is the only concern right now and
On 8/4/20 6:35 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 30-07-20, 10:36, Lukasz Luba wrote:
On 7/30/20 10:10 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 02:23:33PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 29-07-20, 16:12, Lukasz Luba wrote:
The existing CPUFreq framework does not tracks the statistics when
On 30-07-20, 10:36, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> On 7/30/20 10:10 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 02:23:33PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 29-07-20, 16:12, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> > > > The existing CPUFreq framework does not tracks the statistics when the
> > > > 'fast switch' is
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:36:51AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>
> In this case I think we would have to create debugfs.
> Sudeep do you think these debugfs should be exposed from the protocol
> layer:
> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
I prefer above over cpufreq as we can support for all the
On 7/30/20 10:10 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 02:23:33PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 29-07-20, 16:12, Lukasz Luba wrote:
The existing CPUFreq framework does not tracks the statistics when the
'fast switch' is used or when firmware changes the frequency independently
due
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 02:23:33PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 29-07-20, 16:12, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> > The existing CPUFreq framework does not tracks the statistics when the
> > 'fast switch' is used or when firmware changes the frequency independently
> > due to e.g. thermal reasons. However,
On 29-07-20, 16:12, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> The existing CPUFreq framework does not tracks the statistics when the
> 'fast switch' is used or when firmware changes the frequency independently
> due to e.g. thermal reasons. However, the firmware might track the frequency
> changes and expose this to
Hi all,
The existing CPUFreq framework does not tracks the statistics when the
'fast switch' is used or when firmware changes the frequency independently
due to e.g. thermal reasons. However, the firmware might track the frequency
changes and expose this to the kernel.
This patch set aims to
18 matches
Mail list logo
