Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Aug 2020 11:35:31 +0100 | From | Ionela Voinescu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] cpufreq: report whether cpufreq supports Frequency Invariance (FI) |
| |
On Tuesday 04 Aug 2020 at 12:16:56 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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 >
Will do!
Thanks, Ionela.
> -- > viresh
| |