lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] cpufreq: tegra186: Fix initial frequency
From
Date


On 28/10/2020 04:11, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 26-10-20, 12:57, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Thinking about this some more, what are your thoughts on making the
>> following change?
>>
>> Basically, if the driver sets the CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK,
>
> This flag only means that the platform would like the core to check
> the currently programmed frequency and get it in sync with the table.

Yes exactly.

>> then I wonder if we should not fail if the frequency return by
>>> get() is not known.
>
> When do we fail if the frequency isn't known ? That's the case where
> we try to set it to one from the table.

Currently, if the frequency is not known, we fail right before we do the
initial frequency check [0].

> But (looking at your change), ->get() can't really return 0. We depend
> on it to get us the exact frequency the hardware is programmed at
> instead of reading a cached value in the software.

Actually it can and it does currently. Note in tegra186_cpufreq_get()
the variable 'freq' is initialised to 0, and if no match is found, then
it returns 0. This is what happens currently on some Tegra186 boards.

>>> This would fix the problem I see on Tegra186
>> where the initial boot frequency may not be in the frequency table.
>
> With current mainline, what's the problem you see now ? Sorry I missed
> track of it a bit :)

No problem, this has been an on-going saga now for sometime.

Cheers
Jon

[0]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c#n1429
[1]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/tegra186-cpufreq.c#n95

--
nvpublic

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-28 23:55    [W:0.449 / U:0.968 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site