Re: [PATCH V2] cpufreq: Make sure CPU is running on a freq from freq-table

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thursday, November 28, 2013 07:11:17 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 28 November 2013 18:39, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > acpi-cpufreq is one at least.
> >
> > Anyway, this isn't about ACPI or anything like that, but hardware.  Generally
> > speaking, on modern Intel hardware the processor itself chooses the frequency
> > to run at and it may do that behind your back.  Moreover, it can choose a
> > frequency different from the one you asked for.  And it won't choose one that
> > it can't run at for that matter. :-)
> >
> > Overall, I don't believe that the problem you're trying to address is relevant
> > for any non-exotic x86 hardware.
> 
> Okay.. So wouldn't it be better that we add this special flag only when we
> face a real problem? Otherwise this flag might stay unused for long time
> and then we might end up removing it..
> 
> >> > So there should be a flag for
> >> > drivers indicating whether or not frequencies (or operation points in
> >> > general) are directly testable and the check should only be done for
> >> > the drivers with the flag set.
> >>
> >> Probably a flag with properties exactly opposite to what you mentioned,
> >> so that we don't need to modify most of the drivers..
> >
> > That would work too if you prefer it.
> 
> In case we need this flag, what should we name it?
> ALLOW_UNKNOWN_FREQ ??

SKIP_INITIAL_FREQUENCY_CHECK ?

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Devel]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux