On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 15:06, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Il 27/02/23 13:01, Dmitry Baryshkov ha scritto: > > > > I took a glance at the 'cpufreq: qcom-hw: Implement CPRh aware OSM programming' > > patch, it doesn't seem to use the header (maybe I checked the older version of the > > patch). As for me, this is another signal that cpr_ext_data should come together > > with the LUT programming rather than with the CPRh itself. > > > >> Konrad, perhaps you can send the cpufreq-hw commits in a separate series, in > >> which cover letter you mention a dependency on this one? > >> That would *clearly* show the full picture to reviewers. > > > > Yes, that would be great. A small note regarding those patches. I see that you > > patched the qcom-cpufreq-hw.c. This way first the driver programs the LUT, then it > > reads it back to setup the OPPs. Would it be easier to split OSM-not-programmed > > driver? > > > > When I engineered that solution, I kept the cpufreq-hw reading *again* the values > from OSM to keep the driver *fully* compatible with the bootloader-programmed OSM > flow, which makes one thing (in my opinion) perfectly clear: that programming > sequence is exactly the same as what happens "under the hood" on SDM845 (and later) > but performed here-instead-of-there (linux instead of bootloader), with the actual > scaling driver being 100% the same between the two flows in the end. > > Having two drivers as you suggested would indeed achieve the same, but wouldn't be > any easier... if you do that, you'd have to *somehow* make sure that the > programming driver does its job before the cpufreq driver tries to read the OSM > status, adding one more link to an already long chain. > > Besides, I remember that this question got asked a while ago on the mailing lists > and there was a short discussion about it: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg2555580.html Ack, I see. Maybe splitting LUT programming to a separate source file would emphasise the fact that it is only required for some (older) SoCs. Other than that, I have no additional comments for that series. -- With best wishes Dmitry
