On Thursday, July 21, 2016 12:59:26 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 13-07-16, 13:25, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > Cpufreq governors may need to know what a particular target frequency
> > maps to in the driver without necessarily wanting to set the frequency.
> > Support this operation via a new cpufreq API,
> > cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(). This API returns the lowest driver
> > frequency equal or greater than the target frequency
> > (CPUFREQ_RELATION_L), subject to any policy (min/max) or driver
> > limitations. The mapping is also cached in the policy so that a
> > subsequent fast_switch operation can avoid repeating the same lookup.
> >
> > The API will call a new cpufreq driver callback, resolve_freq(), if it
> > has been registered by the driver. Otherwise the frequency is resolved
> > via cpufreq_frequency_table_target(). Rather than require ->target()
> > style drivers to provide a resolve_freq() callback it is left to the
> > caller to ensure that the driver implements this callback if necessary
> > to use cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq().
> >
> > Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Steve Muckle <smuc...@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index 118b4f30a406..b696baeb249d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -492,6 +492,29 @@ void cpufreq_disable_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy
> > *policy)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_disable_fast_switch);
> >
> > +/**
> > + * cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq - Map a target frequency to a
> > driver-supported
> > + * one.
> > + * @target_freq: target frequency to resolve.
> > + *
> > + * The target to driver frequency mapping is cached in the policy.
> > + *
> > + * Return: Lowest driver-supported frequency greater than or equal to the
> > + * given target_freq, subject to policy (min/max) and driver limitations.
> > + */
> > +unsigned int cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > + unsigned int target_freq)
> > +{
> > + target_freq = clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max);
> > + policy->cached_target_freq = target_freq;
> > + if (cpufreq_driver->resolve_freq)
> > + return cpufreq_driver->resolve_freq(policy, target_freq);
>
> Any reason why we still have this call around ? I thought the whole
> attempt I made was to get rid of this :)
>
> The core can do this pretty much now by itself, why do we still want
> this call?
In case some drivers that don't use frequency tables want to implemet
fast switching, for example.
> Also, your series doesn't add a user for it yet, so better drop it for
> now.
That's correct, but then it is not so much of a maintenance burden and I may
need it.
I'm going to apply the whole series.
Thanks,
Rafael
