Around Tue 13 Aug 2013 12:28:04 +0530 or thereabout, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 13 August 2013 12:22, Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Acked-by: Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Thanks for cleaning up (-:
>
> No problem..
>
> Actually there is more to it.. We have got a freq table but neither .verify()
> nor .target() uses it :) and so we need to fix those two also to fix it up..
>
> .verify() looks to be pretty straight forward and so can be replaced by
> the generic routine I wrote for that..
I though you already had a patch to swap verify, hence the need to cleanup
the cpufreq driver first to provide a frequency table?
> But .target() does some calculations which aren't very straight forward
> to replace..
>
> I believe I can remove all below code and simply get the frequency
> as suggested by cpufreq-core ??
>
> /* Convert target_freq from kHz to Hz */
> freq = clk_round_rate(cpuclk, target_freq * 1000);
>
> /* Check if policy->min <= new_freq <= policy->max */
> if(freq < (policy->min * 1000) || freq > (policy->max * 1000))
> return -EINVAL;
This sanity checks that the frequency the system clock can generate is within
the policy limits. It is initially feed the target_freq frequency.
These values are already calculated during init and added to the table, so
one shouldn't need to perform the clk_round_rate() call anymore.
> pr_debug("cpufreq: requested frequency %u Hz\n", target_freq * 1000);
>
> freqs.new = (freq + 500) / 1000;
> freqs.flags = 0;
I don't know the details of how the cpufreq-core suggests frequencies. If it
looks up in the frequency table, then we don't need this sanity check in
.target().
--
mvh
Hans-Christian Egtvedt
--
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
