On 09/08/17 11:06, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 09-08-17, 10:59, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On 09/08/17 05:18, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>> This stores the same handle pointer which is stored in the global variable >>> below. Right? Why keep a local variable here at all ? >> >> Yes, you are right. Initially, started with just private pointers and >> then added global. I was thinking of calling devm_scmi_handle_get per >> policy to reflect the refcount correctly and drop global variable. Let >> me know what you think. > > A refcount of 1 should be fine as well, i.e. For the cpufreq driver. Why would > SCMI care if we manage multiple policies here ? Unless it makes something within > SCMI core better. > Not really, just we can get rid of global pointer which may be need in system with multiple scmi instances, but that's long way to go. >>> This is something special which is used only when we are returning indexes and >>> I am not sure if this will have benefit here. I will rather return 0 here. >>> That's what other drivers are doing. >> >> Indeed had 0 initially but changed as per Juri's suggestion. > > Maybe he suggested doing that in the fast switch routine ? As that's the normal > protocol there. Though I have sent a patch today to propose using 0 there as > well (you cc'd). > Yes, saw that. I have changed both to 0 for now. I will watch that thread and update if necessary before next posting. >> But is 0 >> treated as failure and still running at current OPP ? > > You have used that in the ->get() routine. So the OPP isn't changing, but we are > just trying to fetch it. cpufreq core doesn't do a lot with the value returned > from here, but at one place we break early if 0 is returned. And so all drivers > are returning that. > Agreed, I assumed _INVALID is new thing and changed at both target_indes and fast_switch. >> and not 0KHz I assume. > > Yeah, 0 KHz is dead CPU really :) > :) >>> I suppose any CPU can change the frequency of any other CPU here, right? You >>> must set policy->dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu = true, from ->init() then. >>> >> >> OK, I missed to see something like that exists, will do. > > Fairly recent stuff, present in pm/linux-next only. > Oh OK. >>>> + /* >>>> + * But we need OPP table to function so if it is not there let's >>>> + * give platform code chance to provide it for us. >>>> + */ >>> >>> How are we getting the OPPs? DT or non DT ? >>> >> >> Non DT :), from the firmware. > > I would improve the above comment in that case to clearly say that OPPs are > added by the platform, lets wait for it. > 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
