On Tue 24 Apr 00:26 PDT 2018, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018??? 04??? 24??? 14:29, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Mon 23 Apr 19:48 PDT 2018, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 2018??? 04??? 24??? 09:20, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> >>> The code in devfreq_add_device() handles the case where a freq_table is
> >>> passed by the client, but then requests min and max frequences from
> >>> the, in this case absent, opp tables.
> >>>
> >>> Read the min and max frequencies from the frequency table, which has
> >>> been built from the opp table if one exists, instead of querying the
> >>> opp table.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> An alternative approach is to clarify in the devfreq code that it's not
> >>> possible to pass a freq_table and then in patch 3 create an opp table for the
> >>> device in runtime; although the error handling of this becomes non-trivial.
> >>>
> >>> Transitioning the UFSHCD to use opp tables directly is hindered by the fact
> >>> that the Qualcomm UFS hardware has two different clocks that needs to be
> >>> running at different rates, so we would need a way to describe the two rates in
> >>> the opp table. (And would force us to change the DT binding)
> >>>
> >>> drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 22 ++++------------------
> >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> >>> index fe2af6aa88fc..086ced50a13d 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> >>> @@ -74,30 +74,16 @@ static struct devfreq *find_device_devfreq(struct device *dev)
> >>>
> >>> static unsigned long find_available_min_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq)
> >>> {
> >>> - struct dev_pm_opp *opp;
> >>> - unsigned long min_freq = 0;
> >>> -
> >>> - opp = dev_pm_opp_find_freq_ceil(devfreq->dev.parent, &min_freq);
> >>> - if (IS_ERR(opp))
> >>> - min_freq = 0;
> >>> - else
> >>> - dev_pm_opp_put(opp);
> >>> + struct devfreq_dev_profile *profile = devfreq->profile;
> >>>
> >>> - return min_freq;
> >>> + return profile->freq_table[0];
> >>
> >> It is wrong. The thermal framework support the devfreq-cooling device
> >> which uses the dev_pm_opp_enable/disable().
> >>
> >
> > Okay, that makes sense. So rather than registering a custom freq_table I
> > should register the min and max frequency using dev_pm_opp_add().
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> >> In order to find the correct available min frequency,
> >> the devfreq have to use the OPP function instead of using the first entry
> >> of the freq_table array.
> >>
> >
> > Based on this there seems to be room for cleaning out the freq_table
> > from devfreq, to reduce the confusion. I will review this further.
>
> Actually, devfreq must need to have the freq_table[] array. But, freq_table[]
> array should be handled in the devfreq core. Now, the devfreq device drivers can
> touch the freq_table. I think it is not good.
>
> There is a reason why we have to maintain the freq_table[] as the internal variable.
> OPP doesn't provide the OPP API which get the all registered frequencies.
> If devfreq-cooling device disables the specific frequency by using dev_pm_oppdisable(),
> the user of OPP interface can not get the disabled frequency list.
> So, I maintain the freq_table even if using the OPP interface.
>
Thanks for the clarification, I see some possibilities for improving
this but it makes sense.
> And, devfreq-cooling device uses the freq_table directly because
> released MALi driver from ARM initializes the freq_table list
> directly.
>
Forgive me if I misunderstand this, but isn't this exactly what I'm
trying to do in patch 3? Which stopped working back in v4.15-rc1, with
the introduction of f1d981eaecf8 ("PM / devfreq: Use the available
min/max frequency").
> I have no any objection for refactoring. Just I'm sharing the issue
> and current status.
>
Thanks for sharing the current status and helping me understand how to
properly use devfreq.
Regards,
Bjorn
