Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1691035
| From | Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] selftests: cpufreq: Check cpuinfo_cur_freq set as expected |
| Date | 2017-07-19 09:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u4R7J-4R3-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <u2o9P-7G6-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <u2I8z-3lP-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <u4R7J-4R3-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 18-07-17, 22:34, Leonard Crestez wrote: > The semantics of scaling_cur_freq and cpuinfo_cur_freq are not very > clear to me. cpuinfo_cur_freq reads the frequency right from hardware all the time and so can be slow. It can only be read by root if I remember correctly. Whereas scaling_cur_freq tries to read the cached frequency. But it has changed a bit with the below mentioned patch. > In my particular case I need to check cpuinfo_cur_freq because this is > what ends up returning the rate of the arm clk. Otherwise > scaling_cur_freq just returns policy->cur Yeah, we may actually need to use cpuinfo_cur_freq as that is what ends up giving the real freq. > unless the driver has a > setpolicy function (I don't understand that condition). That's because the core doesn't know the cached freq for setpolicy drivers and so we need to call the ->get() callback. But for non setpolicy drivers, core already has the cached value. -- viresh
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH] selftests: cpufreq: Check cpuinfo_cur_freq set as expected Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-07-19 09:00 +0200 Re: [PATCH] selftests: cpufreq: Check cpuinfo_cur_freq set as expected "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-07-19 15:00 +0200
csiph-web