Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Jonghwan Choi <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add support for descending order for cpufreq table | Date | Thu, 08 May 2014 10:22:51 +0900 |
| |
> @Jonghwan: Please consider doing this: > - Don't play with the order of frequencies in table. > - Instead initialize .driver_data filed with values that you need to write > in the registers for all frequencies. i.e. 0 for highest frequency and > FREQ_COUNT-1 for lowest one.
-> For that, I changed like this. For initializing .driver_data, I changed dev_pm_opp_init_cpufreq_table function().
--- a/drivers/base/power/opp.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp.c @@ -622,12 +622,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_opp_disable); * or in contexts where mutex locking cannot be used. */ int dev_pm_opp_init_cpufreq_table(struct device *dev, - struct cpufreq_frequency_table **table) + struct cpufreq_frequency_table **table, int order) { struct device_opp *dev_opp; struct dev_pm_opp *opp; struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table; - int i = 0; + int i = 0, index = 0;
/* Pretend as if I am an updater */ mutex_lock(&dev_opp_list_lock); @@ -649,16 +649,22 @@ int dev_pm_opp_init_cpufreq_table(struct device *dev, return -ENOMEM; }
+ if (OPP_TABLE_ORDER_DESCENDING == order) + index = dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(dev) - 1; + list_for_each_entry(opp, &dev_opp->opp_list, node) { if (opp->available) { - freq_table[i].driver_data = i; + if (OPP_TABLE_ORDER_DESCENDING == order) + freq_table[i].driver_data = index--; + else + freq_table[i].driver_data = index++; freq_table[i].frequency = opp->rate / 1000; i++; } } mutex_unlock(&dev_opp_list_lock);
- freq_table[i].driver_data = i; + freq_table[i].driver_data = index; freq_table[i].frequency = CPUFREQ_TABLE_END;
*table = &freq_table[0];
Is it acceptiable?
Thanks
Best Regards
| |