On 12/10/2021 14.51, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 12-10-21, 14:34, Hector Martin wrote:
The table *is* assigned to a genpd (the memory controller), it's just that
that genpd isn't actually a parent of the CPU device. Without the patch you
end up with:
[ 3.040060] cpu cpu4: Failed to set performance rate of cpu4: 0 (-19)
[ 3.042881] cpu cpu4: Failed to set required opps: -19
[ 3.045508] cpufreq: __target_index: Failed to change cpu frequency: -19
Hmm, Saravana and Sibi were working on a similar problem earlier and decided to
solve this using devfreq instead. Don't remember the exact series which got
merged for this, Sibi ?
If this part fails, how do you actually set the performance state of the memory
controller's genpd ?
The clock controller has the genpd as an actual power-domain parent, so
it does it instead. From patch #7:
+ if (cluster->has_pd)
+ dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(cluster->dev,
+ dev_pm_opp_get_required_pstate(opp, 0));
+
This is arguably not entirely representative of how the hardware works,
since technically the cluster switching couldn't care less what the
memory controller is doing; it's a soft dependency, states that should
be switched together but are not interdependent (in fact, the clock code
does this unconditionally after the CPU p-state change, regardless of
whether we're shifting up or down; this is, FWIW, the same order macOS
uses, and it clearly doesn't matter which way you do it).
--
Hector Martin (marcan@xxxxxxxxx)
Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub
