On 26-10-20, 12:57, Jon Hunter wrote: > Thinking about this some more, what are your thoughts on making the > following change? > > Basically, if the driver sets the CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK, This flag only means that the platform would like the core to check the currently programmed frequency and get it in sync with the table. > then I wonder if we should not fail if the frequency return by > >get() is not known. When do we fail if the frequency isn't known ? That's the case where we try to set it to one from the table. But (looking at your change), ->get() can't really return 0. We depend on it to get us the exact frequency the hardware is programmed at instead of reading a cached value in the software. > >This would fix the problem I see on Tegra186 > where the initial boot frequency may not be in the frequency table. With current mainline, what's the problem you see now ? Sorry I missed track of it a bit :) -- viresh
