Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1691035

Re: [PATCH] selftests: cpufreq: Check cpuinfo_cur_freq set as expected

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

Show all headers | View raw


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 | NextNext in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


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