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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1735348 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: make cpufreq_generic_init transition_latency default to CPUFREQ_ETERNAL

Started byViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
First post2017-09-20 01:20 +0200
Last post2017-09-20 16:50 +0200
Articles 3 — 2 participants

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 6/7] cpufreq: make cpufreq_generic_init  transition_latency default to CPUFREQ_ETERNAL Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-09-20 01:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: make cpufreq_generic_init  transition_latency default to CPUFREQ_ETERNAL Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 09:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: make cpufreq_generic_init  transition_latency default to CPUFREQ_ETERNAL Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-09-20 16:50 +0200

#1735348 — Re: [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: make cpufreq_generic_init transition_latency default to CPUFREQ_ETERNAL

FromViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date2017-09-20 01:20 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: make cpufreq_generic_init transition_latency default to CPUFREQ_ETERNAL
Message-ID<urzY6-3k6-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 24-08-17, 00:10, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> If no valid transition_latency specified, let's make it default to
> CPUFREQ_ETERNAL which is consistent with its definition.
> 
> This can save some of the same checkings like this:
>         transition_latency = dev_pm_opp_get_max_transition_latency(cpu_dev);
> -       if (!transition_latency)
> -               transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL;
>         ret = cpufreq_generic_init(policy, freq_table, transition_latency);
> 
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>
> Cc: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
> Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 9bf97a3..da07de6 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -180,6 +180,8 @@ int cpufreq_generic_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (!transition_latency)
> +		transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL;
>  	policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = transition_latency;
>  
>  	/*

Can you update all the existing drivers as well (in the same patch)
who can benefit from it?

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1735575

FromDong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com>
Date2017-09-20 09:10 +0200
Message-ID<urHiY-8bg-63@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1735348
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 04:10:07PM -0700, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24-08-17, 00:10, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > If no valid transition_latency specified, let's make it default to
> > CPUFREQ_ETERNAL which is consistent with its definition.
> > 
> > This can save some of the same checkings like this:
> >         transition_latency = dev_pm_opp_get_max_transition_latency(cpu_dev);
> > -       if (!transition_latency)
> > -               transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL;
> >         ret = cpufreq_generic_init(policy, freq_table, transition_latency);
> > 
> > Cc: Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
> > Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index 9bf97a3..da07de6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -180,6 +180,8 @@ int cpufreq_generic_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >  		return ret;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (!transition_latency)
> > +		transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL;
> >  	policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = transition_latency;
> >  
> >  	/*
> 
> Can you update all the existing drivers as well (in the same patch)
> who can benefit from it?

Yes, of course.
Will do it in the updated version later.

Thanks

Regards
Dong Aisheng

> 
> -- 
> viresh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1735800

FromViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date2017-09-20 16:50 +0200
Message-ID<urOu6-4lW-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1735575
On 20-09-17, 15:04, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 04:10:07PM -0700, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 24-08-17, 00:10, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > If no valid transition_latency specified, let's make it default to
> > > CPUFREQ_ETERNAL which is consistent with its definition.
> > > 
> > > This can save some of the same checkings like this:
> > >         transition_latency = dev_pm_opp_get_max_transition_latency(cpu_dev);
> > > -       if (!transition_latency)
> > > -               transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL;
> > >         ret = cpufreq_generic_init(policy, freq_table, transition_latency);
> > > 
> > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
> > > Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 ++
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > index 9bf97a3..da07de6 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > @@ -180,6 +180,8 @@ int cpufreq_generic_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > >  		return ret;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +	if (!transition_latency)
> > > +		transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL;
> > >  	policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = transition_latency;
> > >  
> > >  	/*
> > 
> > Can you update all the existing drivers as well (in the same patch)
> > who can benefit from it?
> 
> Yes, of course.
> Will do it in the updated version later.

Perhaps you can send it separately if you want as your series is
surely going to take some time to get merged.

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web