On Mon, 2023-08-28 at 12:09 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
> you have verified the sender or the content.
> Hi Mark,
>
> I am not entirely clear by few things in the commit log.
>
> On 18-08-23, 10:06, Mark Tseng wrote:
> > For MT8186, it has policy0 and policy6 by different governor
> thread,so
> > it may be call cpufreq->set_target_index() by different core.
>
> Why does this matter ?
For MT8186 set freq must Big CPU -> Little CPU -> CCI like this order
and it
takes 10 ms.
But in cpufreq & devfreq flow , when Big CPU or Little CPU change freq
, it will call
CCI setting by different policy. It will become Big CPU -> CCI setting
or Little CPU ->
CCI setting. Howevery, It will cause CCI setting to wrong value when
per 1ms call governor
and change freq.
> > In general
> > case, it must check BCPU, LCPU and CCI together then take about
> 10ms.
>
> BCPU is Big CPU ? LCPU is Little CPU ?
Yes, it is.
> So are you saying that changing the frequency takes roughly 10 ms for
> MT8186 ?
>
> > Atfer 44295af5019f this patch, it may call cpufreq_out_of_sync() by
> > cpufreq_verify_current_freq() because current frequency is bigger
> > than clk_get_rate() over 1 Mhz. By the same time, it may call
>
> s/ouver/over/
> s/1Mh/1 MHz/
>
>
> > cpufreq->set_target_index() again.
>
> Where was it called for the first time ?
this patch (44295af5019f) , fixed cpufreq_out_of_sync() condition from
1000 Mhz to 1 Mhz.
So, when cpufreq_verify_current_freq() call clk_get_rate() over 1 Mhz,
it must to do freq sync
by cpufreq_out_of_sync(). In MT8186, it offen over 1 Mhz when call
clk_get_rate(), so I modify
transition delay from 1 ms to 10 ms for make sure freq setting done.
> > So, the CCI freq may be too lower for
> > BCPU cause BCPU kernel panic.
>
> I am not sure how a low frequency causes kernel panic here.
In MT8186, if CCI freq is lower than Bit CPU freq 70%, it will causes
kernel panic
on Big CPU.
> > So, it should change the default transition delay 1ms to 10ms. It
> can
> > promise the next freq setting then governor trigger new freq
> change.
>
> There are few typos as well here, please fix them.
>
> > Fixes: 44295af5019f ("cpufreq: use correct unit when verify cur
> freq")
>
> I think you should drop this. The issue at hand may be visible now
> after 44295af5019f is applied, but it certainly didn't cause it.
>
> --
> viresh
>
