Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Feb 2023 09:19:24 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 5/6] soc: qcom: Add support for Core Power Reduction v3, v4 and Hardened | From | AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <> |
| |
Il 27/02/23 14:20, Dmitry Baryshkov ha scritto: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 15:06, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno > <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> wrote: >> >> Il 27/02/23 13:01, Dmitry Baryshkov ha scritto: >>> >>> I took a glance at the 'cpufreq: qcom-hw: Implement CPRh aware OSM programming' >>> patch, it doesn't seem to use the header (maybe I checked the older version of the >>> patch). As for me, this is another signal that cpr_ext_data should come together >>> with the LUT programming rather than with the CPRh itself. >>> >>>> Konrad, perhaps you can send the cpufreq-hw commits in a separate series, in >>>> which cover letter you mention a dependency on this one? >>>> That would *clearly* show the full picture to reviewers. >>> >>> Yes, that would be great. A small note regarding those patches. I see that you >>> patched the qcom-cpufreq-hw.c. This way first the driver programs the LUT, then it >>> reads it back to setup the OPPs. Would it be easier to split OSM-not-programmed >>> driver? >>> >> >> When I engineered that solution, I kept the cpufreq-hw reading *again* the values >> from OSM to keep the driver *fully* compatible with the bootloader-programmed OSM >> flow, which makes one thing (in my opinion) perfectly clear: that programming >> sequence is exactly the same as what happens "under the hood" on SDM845 (and later) >> but performed here-instead-of-there (linux instead of bootloader), with the actual >> scaling driver being 100% the same between the two flows in the end. >> >> Having two drivers as you suggested would indeed achieve the same, but wouldn't be >> any easier... if you do that, you'd have to *somehow* make sure that the >> programming driver does its job before the cpufreq driver tries to read the OSM >> status, adding one more link to an already long chain. >> >> Besides, I remember that this question got asked a while ago on the mailing lists >> and there was a short discussion about it: >> >> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg2555580.html > > Ack, I see. Maybe splitting LUT programming to a separate source file > would emphasise the fact that it is only required for some (older)
Maybe. I'm not sure it's worth adding a new helper file, but I don't really have any strong arguments against...
Konrad, your call.
Cheers! Angelo
> SoCs. Other than that, I have no additional comments for that series. >
| |