Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:16:56 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] cpufreq: report whether cpufreq supports Frequency Invariance (FI) |
| |
On 03-08-20, 16:24, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > Right, cpufreq_register_driver() should check that at least one of them > is present
> (although currently cpufreq_register_driver() will return > -EINVAL if .fast_switch() alone is present - something to be fixed).
I think it is fine as there is no guarantee from cpufreq core if .fast_switch() will get called and so target/target_index must be present. We can't do fast-switch today without schedutil (as only that enables it) and if a notifier gets registered before the driver, then we are gone again.
> Will do, on both accounts. > > > > > + static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&cpufreq_set_freq_scale); > > > + pr_debug("%s: Driver %s can provide frequency invariance.", > > > + __func__, driver->name); > > > > I think a simpler print will work well too. > > > > pr_debug("Freq invariance enabled"); > > > > I think the right way of reporting this support is important here.
Yeah, we can't say it is enabled as you explained, though I meant something else here then, i.e. getting rid of driver name and unimportant stuff. What about this now:
pr_debug("supports frequency invariance");
This shall get printed as this finally:
cpufreq: supports frequency invariance
-- viresh
| |