On 1/31/24 21:38, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 03:29:43PM +0100, Pierre Gondois wrote:
Hello Sibi,
On 1/17/24 12:04, Sibi Sankar wrote:
All opps above the sustained level/frequency are treated as boost, so mark
them accordingly.
Sudeep/Pierre,
Thanks for taking time to review the series.
Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
index e286f04ee6e3..d3fb8c804b3d 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
@@ -811,7 +811,7 @@ static int scmi_dvfs_device_opps_add(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
struct device *dev, u32 domain)
{
int idx, ret;
- unsigned long freq;
+ unsigned long freq, sustained_freq;
struct dev_pm_opp_data data = {};
struct perf_dom_info *dom;
@@ -819,12 +819,21 @@ static int scmi_dvfs_device_opps_add(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
if (IS_ERR(dom))
return PTR_ERR(dom);
+ if (!dom->level_indexing_mode)
+ sustained_freq = dom->sustained_perf_level * dom->mult_factor;
+ else
+ sustained_freq = dom->sustained_freq_khz * dom->mult_factor;
+
for (idx = 0; idx < dom->opp_count; idx++) {
if (!dom->level_indexing_mode)
freq = dom->opp[idx].perf * dom->mult_factor;
else
freq = dom->opp[idx].indicative_freq * dom->mult_factor;
+ /* All opps above the sustained level/frequency are treated as boost */
+ if (sustained_freq && freq > sustained_freq)
It seems the sustained_freq is not optional since SCMI v1.0,
is it necessary to check that (sustained_freq != 0) ?
Technically correct, we don't have to. But since day 1, we checked and
handled 0 for perf_level specifically to avoid division by zero. I am
just worried if there are any platforms in the wild with these values as
0. We can start without the check and add it if someone complains perhaps ?
sure will drop the check in the re-spin.
-Sibi
