Hey,
On Thursday 24 Jun 2021 at 18:34:18 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24-06-21, 10:48, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> > On Monday 21 Jun 2021 at 14:49:37 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > The Frequency Invariance Engine (FIE) is providing a frequency scaling
> > > correction factor that helps achieve more accurate load-tracking.
> > [..]
> > > +static void cppc_cpufreq_cpu_fie_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > > +{
> > > + struct cppc_freq_invariance *cppc_fi;
> > > + int cpu;
> > > +
> > > + if (cppc_cpufreq_driver.get == hisi_cppc_cpufreq_get_rate)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + /* policy->cpus will be empty here, use related_cpus instead */
> > > + topology_clear_scale_freq_source(SCALE_FREQ_SOURCE_CPPC, policy->related_cpus);
> > > +
> > > + for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->related_cpus) {
> > > + cppc_fi = &per_cpu(cppc_freq_inv, cpu);
> >
> > Do you think it might be worth having here something like:
> >
> > if (!cppc_fi->cpu_data)
> > continue;
> >
> > This would be to protect against cases where the platform does not boot
> > with all CPUs or the module is loaded after some have already been
> > offlined. Unlikely, but..
>
> Even in that case policy->cpus will contain all offline+online CPUs (at ->init()
> time), isn't it ?
>
Right, my bad. I missed cpumask_and(policy->cpus, policy->cpus,
cpu_online_mask) being done after init(). It logically seems a bit
wrong, but drivers are in control of setting policy->cpus and acting on
it, and in this case the driver does the right thing.
Thanks,
Ionela.
> > > + irq_work_sync(&cppc_fi->irq_work);
> > > + kthread_cancel_work_sync(&cppc_fi->work);
> > > + }
> > > +}
> >
> > The rest of the code is almost the same as the original, so that is all
> > from me :).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ionela.
>
> --
> viresh
