On 16/01/2015 10:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 2015-01-15 at 18:24 +0100, Mason wrote:
This is a follow-up to my previous thread.
"How many frequencies would cpufreq optimally like to manage?"
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/373669
As I originally wrote, I'm running 3.14 on an ARM Cortex-A9
based SoC (namely Tango4 from Sigma Designs). I'd like to get
some feedback on the cpufreq driver I wrote for that platform.
I decided to expose only a small subset of frequencies (namely
{999,500,333,111} MHz) because, in my tests, the ondemand gov
chose mostly min and max, and the intermediate frequencies not
so much; so I figured "2 intermediate freqs" is good enough.
(I'm ready to hear otherwise.)
I'll take a closer look at other drivers, but I'd like to hear
opinions on the subject.
I tried to use as much generic framework as possible, but I've
read about the clk framework, and it looks to be an even greater
generalization. Are new platforms encouraged to use that, rather
than provide a cpufreq driver? Does it work when voltage scaling
comes in play? (This SoC doesn't have it, but the next will.)
The clock framework generalizes clocks, not cpufreq. Ideally you should
use clock framework in cpufreq driver. So instead manually setting
divider just do something like:
ret = clk_set_rate(cpu_clk, freq_exact);
if (ret) {
dev_err(cpu_dev, "failed to set clock rate: %d\n", ret);
return ret;
}
I will give clk a closer look.
For voltage scaling you should use regulator framework.
OK. I'm also interested in frequency-throttling when temperatures
rise beyond specific thresholds. What subsystem ties sensors and
cpufreq together?
Actually I think existing cpufreq-dt could serve your purpose. Why don't
you try it? Or look at it and use as an example.
Will do. I've heard of device tree, but know nothing about it.
I'm also wondering how cpufreq and cpuidle interact? Is one a
subset of the other? Are they orthogonal?
cpuidle and cpufreq are different subsystems. They don't interact, yet.
There are efforts to combine scheduler, cpufreq and cpuidle but this is
future. If your SoC has some deeper low power states than developing
cpuidle driver makes sense. If not - WFI will be used.
AFAIU, there are no deeper power states on the Cortex-A9.
I didn't find where WFI is called :-(
In kernel/cpu/idle.c (file seems to have been removed in 3.15)
cpu_idle_loop() calls arch_cpu_idle()
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/kernel/cpu/idle.c?v=3.14#L98
In arch/kernel/process.c
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm/kernel/process.c?v=3.14#L173
/*
* Called from the core idle loop.
*/
void arch_cpu_idle(void)
{
if (cpuidle_idle_call())
default_idle();
}
default_idle calls cpu_do_idle (by default), a macro for cpu_v7_do_idle
which executes dsb+wfi, BUT...
ifndef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE then
static inline int cpuidle_idle_call(void) { return -ENODEV; }
Does that mean I MUST define CONFIG_CPU_IDLE if I want the idle
loop to call wfi (to save power), even if I don't have a cpuidle
driver?
Regards.
--
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
