On 02/17/2014 02:24 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17 February 2014 14:13, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 02/14/2014 04:30 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> cpufreq_update_policy() is called from two places currently. From a workqueue
>>> handled queued from cpufreq_bp_resume() for boot CPU and from
>>> cpufreq_cpu_callback() whenever a CPU is added.
>>>
>>> The first one makes sure that boot CPU is running on the frequency present in
>>> policy->cpu. But we don't really need a call from cpufreq_cpu_callback(),
>>> because we always call cpufreq_driver->init() (which will set policy->cur
>>> correctly) whenever first CPU of any policy is added back. And so every policy
>>> structure is guaranteed to have the right frequency in policy->cur.
>>>
>>
>> This wording is slightly inaccurate. ->init() may or may not set policy->cur
>> (for example, powernowk8 driver doesn't set it in the init routine)..
>
> Its not the wording that is wrong but this particular driver then :)
> This is what Documentation/cpu-drivers.txt says:
>
> 1.2 Per-CPU Initialization
> Then, the driver must fill in the following values:
>
> policy->cur The current operating frequency of
> this CPU (if appropriate)
>
> And so it is supposed to do it.
>
Ah, I see.
>> But we set it for sure in __cpufreq_add_dev():
>>
>> 1117 if (cpufreq_driver->get) {
>> 1118 policy->cur = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
>> 1119 if (!policy->cur) {
>> 1120 pr_err("%s: ->get() failed\n", __func__);
>> 1121 goto err_get_freq;
>> 1122 }
>> 1123 }
>
> Its just about removing that from drivers and doing it once in core :)
>
Ok..
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
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
