On Monday, August 19, 2013 08:50:37 AM Lukasz Majewski wrote: > On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:08:26 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote, > > On 13 August 2013 15:38, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > This patch series introduces support for CPU overclocking technique > > > called Boost. > > > > > > It is a follow up of a LAB governor proposal. Boost is a LAB > > > component: > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1484746/match=cpufreq > > > > > > Boost unifies hardware based solution (e.g. Intel Nehalem) with > > > software oriented one (like the one done at Exynos). > > > For this reason cpufreq/freq_table code has been reorganized to > > > include common code. > > > > > > Important design decisions: > > > - Boost related code is compiled-in unconditionally to cpufreq core > > > and disabled by default. The cpufreq_driver is responsibile for > > > setting boost_supported flag and providing set_boost callback(if HW > > > support is needed). For software managed boost, special Kconfig > > > flag - CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW has been defined. It will be > > > selected only when a target platform has thermal framework properly > > > configured. > > > > > > - struct cpufreq_driver has been extended with boost related fields: > > > -- boost_supported - when driver supports boosting > > > -- boost_enabled - boost state > > > -- set_boost - callback to function, which is necessary to > > > enable/disable boost > > > > > > - Boost sysfs attribute (/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost) is > > > visible _only_ when cpufreq driver supports Boost. > > > > > > - No special spin_lock for Boost was created. The one from cpufreq > > > core was reused. > > > > > > - The Boost code doesn't rely on any policy. When boost state is > > > changed, then the policy list is iterated and proper adjustements > > > are done. > > > > > > - To improve safety level, the thermal framework is also extended > > > to disable software boosting, when thermal trip point is reached. > > > Then it starts monitoring target temperature to evaluate if boost > > > can be enabled again. This emulates behaviour similar to HW managed > > > boost (like x86) > > > > > > Tested at HW: > > > Exynos 4412 3.11-rc4 Linux > > > Intel Core i7-3770 3.11-rc4 Linux > > > > > > Above patches were posted on top of linux_pm/linux-next with > > > following patches applied: > > > > > > cpufreq: exynos5440: Fix to skip when new frequency same as current > > > cpufreq: fix EXYNOS drivers selection > > > > > > Lukasz Majewski (7): > > > cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core > > > cpufreq:acpi:x86: Adjust the acpi-cpufreq.c code to work with > > > common boost solution > > > thermal:boost: Automatic enable/disable of BOOST feature > > > cpufreq:boost:Kconfig: Provide support for software managed BOOST > > > cpufreq:exynos:Extend Exynos cpufreq driver to support boost > > > framework > > > Documentation:cpufreq:boost: Update BOOST documentation > > > cpufreq:exynos4x12: Change L0 driver data to CPUFREQ_BOOST_FREQ > > > > Hi Lukasz, > > > > Hi Viresh, > > > I haven't found time yet to go through this series.. > > I've just started wondering if I had send those patches correctly :-). > > > I want to do a > > deep/careful review this time as these are almost the final patches. > > Ok. > > > > > Will try to get over them by the end of this week.. > > Ok, I understand. Do I assume correctly that this stuff has been tested on ACPI-compatible x86 with acpi-cpufreq and everything has worked correctly there? Rafael -- 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
