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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1701856 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH V8 1/6] PM / Domains: Add support to select performance-state of domains

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH V8 1/6] PM / Domains: Add support to select  performance-state of domains Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-08-02 10:30 +0200

#1701856 — Re: [PATCH V8 1/6] PM / Domains: Add support to select performance-state of domains

On 31-07-17, 09:44, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 29-07-17, 10:24, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > Let's invent a new genpd flag, GENPD_FLAG_PERF_STATE!
> > 
> > The creator of the genpd then needs to set this before calling
> > pm_genpd_init(). Similar as we are dealing with GENPD_FLAG_PM_CLK.
> > 
> > The requirement for GENPD_FLAG_PERF_STATES, is to have the
> > ->get_performance_state() assigned. This shall be verified during
> > pm_genpd_init().
> > 
> > The pm_genpd_has_performance_state() then only need to return true, in
> > cases the device's genpd has GENPD_FLAG_PERF_STATE set - else false.
> > 
> > Regarding ->set_performance_state(), let's just make it optional - and
> > when trying to set a new performance state, just walk the genpd
> > hierarchy, from bottom to up, then invoke the callback when it's
> > assigned.
> 
> Sounds good.

Actually, I don't think we need this flag at all. The presence of the
get_performance_state() callback itself can be used as a flag here instead of
defining a new one.

As with both, your above solution and my solution, we pretty much don't check
presence of set_performance_state() callbacks in the master hierarchy. If its
present, we call it, else nothing happens.

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web