On 24 May 2013 16:50, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 24 May 2013 14:00, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is not safe IMHO to add permanently overclocked frequency to the > freq table. Since, for example, thermal framework also asks for > reference to this table. Yes, its wrong. Even adding it permanently this way would be a problem if governor is changed to performance. :) > The idea beneath overclocking is to add "dangerous" frequency to the > frequency table only when necessary (and remove it when not needed). Hmm.. probably the idea beneath is to use dangerous frequency only when we are assured that we will not break system.. It doesn't have anything to do with cpufreq table entries :) > In this way, the thermal framework (as it is done at our platform) will > decrease the frequency (according to thermal governor :-) ) to safe > level. > > Overclocking is disabled in 2 ways (at our setup): > - thermal framework is here to help us > - lab governor disables the overclocking when favorable conditions are > gone. I don't want to discuss OR think about LAB for now.. Want to get overclocking feature in first. > One more remark - enabling tb_en_over_clk at sysfs (echo 1 >> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/tb_en_over_clk) > adds overclock frequency to frequency table and updates policy. What if it is enabled and governor is changed to performance without disabling it... Who will take care of disabling dangerous frequencies? One thing I am certain about is to make overclocking a generic and core feature, rather than platform specific... What about adding overdrive frequencies in freq table permanently but with .index field as: CPUFREQ_ENTRY_OVERDRIVE ?? This way we will use frequencies marked with CPUFREQ_ENTRY_OVERDRIVE only when we have overclocking enabled. And not at other times? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
