On 13/01/2023 22:07, Vivek Aknurwar wrote:
Currently framework sets bw even when init bw requirements are zero during
provider registration, thus resulting bulk of set bw to hw.
Avoid this behaviour by skipping provider set bw calls if init bw is zero.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Aknurwar <quic_viveka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/interconnect/core.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/interconnect/core.c b/drivers/interconnect/core.c
index 25debde..43ed595 100644
--- a/drivers/interconnect/core.c
+++ b/drivers/interconnect/core.c
@@ -977,14 +977,17 @@ void icc_node_add(struct icc_node *node, struct icc_provider *provider)
node->avg_bw = node->init_avg;
node->peak_bw = node->init_peak;
- if (provider->pre_aggregate)
- provider->pre_aggregate(node);
-
- if (provider->aggregate)
- provider->aggregate(node, 0, node->init_avg, node->init_peak,
- &node->avg_bw, &node->peak_bw);
+ if (node->avg_bw || node->peak_bw) {
+ if (provider->pre_aggregate)
+ provider->pre_aggregate(node);
+
+ if (provider->aggregate)
+ provider->aggregate(node, 0, node->init_avg, node->init_peak,
+ &node->avg_bw, &node->peak_bw);
+ if (provider->set)
+ provider->set(node, node);
+ }
- provider->set(node, node);
node->avg_bw = 0;
node->peak_bw = 0;
I have the same comment/question for this patch that I had for the qcom
arch specific version of it. This patch seems to be doing at a higher
level what the patch below was doing at a lower level.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1039a507-c4cd-e92f-dc29-1e2169ce5078@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#m0c90588d0d1e2ab88c39be8f5f3a8f0b61396349
what happens to earlier silicon - qcom silicon which previously made
explicit zero requests ?
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1039a507-c4cd-e92f-dc29-1e2169ce5078@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#m589e8280de470e038249bb362634221771d845dd
https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/1/3/1232
Isn't it a better idea to let lower layer drivers differentiate what
they do ?
For example on pre 5.4 qcom kernel silicon we might choose to set the
value to zero "because that's what the reference code did" but on newer
silicon we might opt to skip the zero configuration ?
I'm happy to be shown the error of my ways but, absent testing to *show*
it doesn't impact existing legacy silicon, I think we should be wary of
this change.
---
bod
