Hi Chanwoo,
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 03:41:46PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Firstly,
> I'm not sure why devfreq needs the devfreq_verify_within_limits() function.
>
> devfreq already used the OPP interface as default. It means that
> the outside of 'drivers/devfreq' can disable/enable the frequency
> such as drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c. Also, when some device
> drivers disable/enable the specific frequency, the devfreq core
> consider them.
>
> So, devfreq doesn't need to devfreq_verify_within_limits() because
> already support some interface to change the minimum/maximum frequency
> of devfreq device.
>
> In case of cpufreq subsystem, cpufreq only provides 'cpufreq_verify_with_limits()'
> to change the minimum/maximum frequency of cpu. some device driver cannot
> change the minimum/maximum frequency through OPP interface.
>
> But, in case of devfreq subsystem, as I explained already, devfreq support
> the OPP interface as default way. devfreq subsystem doesn't need to add
> other way to change the minimum/maximum frequency.
Using the OPP interface exclusively works as long as a
enabling/disabling of OPPs is limited to a single driver
(drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c). When multiple drivers are
involved you need a way to resolve conflicts, that's the purpose of
devfreq_verify_within_limits(). Please let me know if there are
existing mechanisms for conflict resolution that I overlooked.
Possibly drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c could be migrated to use
devfreq_verify_within_limits() instead of the OPP interface if
desired, however this seems beyond the scope of this series.
> Secondly,
> This patch send the 'struct devfreq_policy' instance as the data
> when sending the notification as following:
>
> srcu_notifier_call_chain(&devfreq->policy_notifier_list,
> DEVFREQ_ADJUST, policy);
>
> But, I think that if devfreq core sends the 'struct devfreq_freq_limits'
> instance instead of 'struct devfreq_policy', it is enough.
> Because receiver of DEVFREQ_ADJUST just will use the min_freq/max_freq variables.
>
> So, I tried to find the cpufreq's case. The some device drivers using
> CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER uses following variables of 'struct cpufreq_policy'.
> It means that receiver of CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER don't need to other
> information/variables except for min/max frequency.
>
> - policy->min
> - policy->max
> - policy->cpuinfo.max_freq
> - policy->cpuinfo.min_freq
> - policy->cpu : not related to devfreq)
> - policy->related_cpus : not related to devfreq)
>
> - list of device drivers using CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER (linux kernel is v4.18-rc1)
> $ grep -rn "CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER" .
> ./drivers/macintosh/windfarm_cpufreq_clamp.c
> ./drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> ./drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> ./drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c
> ./drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c
> ./drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> ./drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> ./drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> ./drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> ./drivers/video/fbdev/sa1100fb.c
> ./drivers/video/fbdev/pxafb.c
> ./drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c
> ./drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> ./drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> ./drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> ./drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
Thanks for your investigation.
I decided to mirror the cpufreq interface for consistency, but I agree
that 'struct devfreq_freq_limits' could be passed instead of the
policy object. I'm fine with changing that.
> On 2018년 07월 04일 08:46, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > Policy notifiers are called before a frequency change and may narrow
> > the min/max frequency range in devfreq_policy, which is used to adjust
> > the target frequency if it is beyond this range.
> >
> > Also add a few helpers:
> > - devfreq_verify_within_[dev_]limits()
> > - should be used by the notifiers for policy adjustments.
> > - dev_to_devfreq()
> > - lookup a devfreq strict from a device pointer
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v5:
> > - none
> >
> > Changes in v4:
> > - Fixed typo in commit message: devfreg => devfreq
> > - added 'Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>' tag
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> > - devfreq.h: fixed misspelling of struct devfreq_policy
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - performance, powersave and simpleondemand governors don't need changes
> > with "PM / devfreq: Don't adjust to user limits in governors"
> > - formatting fixes
> > ---
> > drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > include/linux/devfreq.h | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> > index 21604d6ae2b8..4cbaa7ad1972 100644
> > --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> > @@ -72,6 +72,21 @@ static struct devfreq *find_device_devfreq(struct device *dev)
> > return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > }
> >
> > +/**
> > + * dev_to_devfreq() - find devfreq struct using device pointer
> > + * @dev: device pointer used to lookup device devfreq.
> > + */
> > +struct devfreq *dev_to_devfreq(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct devfreq *devfreq;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&devfreq_list_lock);
> > + devfreq = find_device_devfreq(dev);
> > + mutex_unlock(&devfreq_list_lock);
> > +
> > + return devfreq;
> > +}
> > +
> > static unsigned long find_available_min_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq)
> > {
> > struct dev_pm_opp *opp;
> > @@ -269,20 +284,21 @@ int update_devfreq(struct devfreq *devfreq)
> > if (!policy->governor)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > + policy->min = policy->devinfo.min_freq;
> > + policy->max = policy->devinfo.max_freq;
>
> Why don't you consider 'policy->user.max/min_freq' as following?
> As I already commented, I think that 'struct devfreq_freq_limits' is enough
> instead of 'struct devfreq_policy'.
>
> ->max_freq = MIN(policy->devinfo.max_freq, policy->user.max_freq);
> ->min_freq = MAX(policy->devinfo.min_freq, policy->user.min_freq);
You mean limiting the frequency range with user.min/max before
DEVFREQ_ADJUST instead of adjusting it afterwards? That's fine with
me.
Thanks
Matthias
--
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
