Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:30:07 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] cpufreq: Process remote callbacks from any CPU if the platform permits |
| |
On 28-07-17, 20:43, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:46 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On many platforms, CPUs can do DVFS across cpufreq policies. i.e CPU > > from policy-A can change frequency of CPUs belonging to policy-B. > > > > This is quite common in case of ARM platforms where we don't > > configure any per-cpu register. > > > > Add a flag to identify such platforms and update > > cpufreq_can_do_remote_dvfs() to allow remote callbacks if this flag is > > set. > > > > Also enable the flag for cpufreq-dt driver which is used only on ARM > > platforms currently. > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c | 1 + > > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- > > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c > > index fef3c2160691..d83ab94d041a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c > > @@ -274,6 +274,7 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL; > > > > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = transition_latency; > > + policy->dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu = true; > > > > Are there also ARM hardware that may not support it?
I don't think so. ARM never had any per-cpu register interface which may break due to this.
> If yes, wouldn't > a saner thing to do be to keep default as false and read the property > from DT for hardware that does support it and then set to true?
I would do it if required, but for now I don't think there are any such users of cpufreq-dt.
-- viresh
| |