| Message ID | 87fecd84e3f6ff6f153be14b0d53de93c0b04ae6.1628579170.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model | expand |
On 8/10/21 8:36 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Use the CPUFREQ_REGISTER_WITH_EM flag to allow cpufreq core to > automatically register with the energy model. > > This allows removal of boiler plate code from the driver and fixes the > unregistration part as well. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c > index 51dfa9ae6cf5..28c4c3254337 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c > @@ -442,8 +442,6 @@ static int ve_spc_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > policy->freq_table = freq_table[cur_cluster]; > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = 1000000; /* 1 ms */ > > - dev_pm_opp_of_register_em(cpu_dev, policy->cpus); > - > if (is_bL_switching_enabled()) > per_cpu(cpu_last_req_freq, policy->cpu) = > clk_get_cpu_rate(policy->cpu); > @@ -487,7 +485,8 @@ static void ve_spc_cpufreq_ready(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > static struct cpufreq_driver ve_spc_cpufreq_driver = { > .name = "vexpress-spc", > .flags = CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY | > - CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK, > + CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK | > + CPUFREQ_REGISTER_WITH_EM, > .verify = cpufreq_generic_frequency_table_verify, > .target_index = ve_spc_cpufreq_set_target, > .get = ve_spc_cpufreq_get_rate, > I can see that this driver calls explicitly the of_cpufreq_cooling_register() It does this in the cpufreq_driver->ready() callback implementation: ve_spc_cpufreq_ready() With that in mind, the new code in the patch 1/8, which registers the EM, should be called even earlier, above: ---------------------8<--------------------------------- /* Callback for handling stuff after policy is ready */ if (cpufreq_driver->ready) cpufreq_driver->ready(policy); ------------------->8---------------------------------- This also triggered a question: If this new flag can be set in the cpufreq driver which hasn't set CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV ? I can only see one driver (this one in the patch) which has such configuration.
On 10-08-21, 11:05, Lukasz Luba wrote: > I can see that this driver calls explicitly the > of_cpufreq_cooling_register() > It does this in the cpufreq_driver->ready() callback > implementation: ve_spc_cpufreq_ready() > > With that in mind, the new code in the patch 1/8, which > registers the EM, should be called even earlier, above: > ---------------------8<--------------------------------- > /* Callback for handling stuff after policy is ready */ > if (cpufreq_driver->ready) > cpufreq_driver->ready(policy); > ------------------->8---------------------------------- Thanks. I will look at this sequencing issue again. > This also triggered a question: > If this new flag can be set in the cpufreq driver which hasn't set > CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV > ? Why not ? > I can only see one driver (this one in the patch) which has such > configuration.
On 8/10/21 11:06 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10-08-21, 11:05, Lukasz Luba wrote: >> I can see that this driver calls explicitly the >> of_cpufreq_cooling_register() >> It does this in the cpufreq_driver->ready() callback >> implementation: ve_spc_cpufreq_ready() >> >> With that in mind, the new code in the patch 1/8, which >> registers the EM, should be called even earlier, above: >> ---------------------8<--------------------------------- >> /* Callback for handling stuff after policy is ready */ >> if (cpufreq_driver->ready) >> cpufreq_driver->ready(policy); >> ------------------->8---------------------------------- > > Thanks. I will look at this sequencing issue again. > >> This also triggered a question: >> If this new flag can be set in the cpufreq driver which hasn't set >> CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV >> ? > > Why not ? I thought someone could try to call cpufreq_cooling_register() from the cpufreq driver init function, but it's not possible. I have just checked that, so should be good with these two flags being independent and working fine. > >> I can only see one driver (this one in the patch) which has such >> configuration. >
On 10-08-21, 11:11, Lukasz Luba wrote: > > > On 8/10/21 11:06 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 10-08-21, 11:05, Lukasz Luba wrote: > > > I can see that this driver calls explicitly the > > > of_cpufreq_cooling_register() > > > It does this in the cpufreq_driver->ready() callback > > > implementation: ve_spc_cpufreq_ready() > > > > > > With that in mind, the new code in the patch 1/8, which > > > registers the EM, should be called even earlier, above: > > > ---------------------8<--------------------------------- > > > /* Callback for handling stuff after policy is ready */ > > > if (cpufreq_driver->ready) > > > cpufreq_driver->ready(policy); > > > ------------------->8---------------------------------- > > > > Thanks. I will look at this sequencing issue again. > > > > > This also triggered a question: > > > If this new flag can be set in the cpufreq driver which hasn't set > > > CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV > > > ? > > > > Why not ? > > I thought someone could try to call cpufreq_cooling_register() > from the cpufreq driver init function, but it's not possible. I have > just checked that, so should be good with these two flags being > independent and working fine. Ahh, I see. Great.
On 8/10/21 8:36 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Use the CPUFREQ_REGISTER_WITH_EM flag to allow cpufreq core to > automatically register with the energy model. > > This allows removal of boiler plate code from the driver and fixes the > unregistration part as well. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c > index 51dfa9ae6cf5..28c4c3254337 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c > @@ -442,8 +442,6 @@ static int ve_spc_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > policy->freq_table = freq_table[cur_cluster]; > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = 1000000; /* 1 ms */ > > - dev_pm_opp_of_register_em(cpu_dev, policy->cpus); > - > if (is_bL_switching_enabled()) > per_cpu(cpu_last_req_freq, policy->cpu) = > clk_get_cpu_rate(policy->cpu); > @@ -487,7 +485,8 @@ static void ve_spc_cpufreq_ready(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > static struct cpufreq_driver ve_spc_cpufreq_driver = { > .name = "vexpress-spc", > .flags = CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY | > - CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK, > + CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK | > + CPUFREQ_REGISTER_WITH_EM, > .verify = cpufreq_generic_frequency_table_verify, > .target_index = ve_spc_cpufreq_set_target, > .get = ve_spc_cpufreq_get_rate, > With the change for patch 1/8 the we discussed below this patch 8/8, it LGTM Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 01:06:55PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Use the CPUFREQ_REGISTER_WITH_EM flag to allow cpufreq core to > automatically register with the energy model. > > This allows removal of boiler plate code from the driver and fixes the > unregistration part as well. > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c index 51dfa9ae6cf5..28c4c3254337 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c @@ -442,8 +442,6 @@ static int ve_spc_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) policy->freq_table = freq_table[cur_cluster]; policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = 1000000; /* 1 ms */ - dev_pm_opp_of_register_em(cpu_dev, policy->cpus); - if (is_bL_switching_enabled()) per_cpu(cpu_last_req_freq, policy->cpu) = clk_get_cpu_rate(policy->cpu); @@ -487,7 +485,8 @@ static void ve_spc_cpufreq_ready(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) static struct cpufreq_driver ve_spc_cpufreq_driver = { .name = "vexpress-spc", .flags = CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY | - CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK, + CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK | + CPUFREQ_REGISTER_WITH_EM, .verify = cpufreq_generic_frequency_table_verify, .target_index = ve_spc_cpufreq_set_target, .get = ve_spc_cpufreq_get_rate,
Use the CPUFREQ_REGISTER_WITH_EM flag to allow cpufreq core to automatically register with the energy model. This allows removal of boiler plate code from the driver and fixes the unregistration part as well. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)