On 09/08/17 05:28, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 04-08-17, 15:31, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> The cpufreq core provides option for drivers to implement fast_switch
>> callback which is invoked for frequency switching from interrupt context.
>>
>> This patch adds support for fast_switch callback in SCMI cpufreq driver
>> by making use of polling based SCMI transfer. It also sets the flag
>> fast_switch_possible.
>>
>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
>> index 034359cafea5..cb1084cb1ef1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -61,6 +61,19 @@ scmi_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index)
>> return perf_ops->freq_set(priv->handle, priv->domain_id, freq, false);
>> }
>>
>> +static unsigned int scmi_cpufreq_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> + unsigned int target_freq)
>> +{
>> + struct scmi_data *priv = policy->driver_data;
>> + struct scmi_perf_ops *perf_ops = priv->handle->perf_ops;
>> +
>> + if (!perf_ops->freq_set(priv->handle, priv->domain_id,
>> + target_freq * 1000, true))
>> + return target_freq;
>> +
>> + return CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID;
>> +}
>
> This is very much similar to the target routine, perhaps we should write another
> local routine which is used by both target and fast switch.
>
Just one difference, fast switch uses polling based mailbox while
target_index uses interrupt based. I thought initially to reuse, but
it's comes done to just perf_ops->freq_set, so dropped that idea.
> Do we guarantee that the frequency is changed by the time this routine returns?
No, firmware may return acknowledging the request not it's completion.
> Or we just send a SCMI request and return back ?
>
Yes, exactly.
> If we just send the request and don't wait for freq to get changed, what
> protects another scmi_cpufreq_fast_switch() to get called before the first one
> is finished? And what will happen on that call ?
Firmware needs to serialize or override based on the timing of the two
consecutive requests.
>
>> static int
>> scmi_get_sharing_cpus(struct device *cpu_dev, struct cpumask *cpumask)
>> {
>> @@ -164,6 +177,7 @@ static int scmi_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>
>> policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = latency;
>>
>> + policy->fast_switch_possible = true;
>> return 0;
>>
>> out_free_cpufreq_table:
>> @@ -180,6 +194,7 @@ static int scmi_cpufreq_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> {
>> struct scmi_data *priv = policy->driver_data;
>>
>> + policy->fast_switch_possible = false;
>> cpufreq_cooling_unregister(priv->cdev);
>> dev_pm_opp_free_cpufreq_table(priv->cpu_dev, &policy->freq_table);
>> dev_pm_opp_cpumask_remove_table(policy->related_cpus);
>> @@ -228,6 +243,7 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver scmi_cpufreq_driver = {
>> .init = scmi_cpufreq_init,
>> .exit = scmi_cpufreq_exit,
>> .ready = scmi_cpufreq_ready,
>> + .fast_switch = scmi_cpufreq_fast_switch,
>
> Maybe add it right after target_index ?
>
Done
--
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
