On 02-02-17, 00:44, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:53:01 AM Markus Mayer wrote:
> > On 5 January 2017 at 20:11, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > On 19-12-16, 12:10, Markus Mayer wrote:
> > >> From: Markus Mayer <mma...@broadcom.com>
> > >>
> > >> The AVS GET_PMAP command does return a P-state along with the P-map
> > >> information. However, that P-state is the initial P-state when the
> > >> P-map was first downloaded to AVS. It is *not* the current P-state.
> > >>
> > >> Therefore, we explicitly retrieve the P-state using the GET_PSTATE
> > >> command.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mma...@broadcom.com>
> > >> ---
> > >> drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> > >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
> > >> b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
> > >> index 2c6e325..c943606 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
> > >> @@ -784,8 +784,19 @@ static int brcm_avs_target_index(struct
> > >> cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > >> static int brcm_avs_suspend(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > >> {
> > >> struct private_data *priv = policy->driver_data;
> > >> + int ret;
> > >> +
> > >> + ret = brcm_avs_get_pmap(priv, &priv->pmap);
> > >> + if (ret)
> > >> + return ret;
> > >>
> > >> - return brcm_avs_get_pmap(priv, &priv->pmap);
> > >> + /*
> > >> + * We can't use the P-state returned by brcm_avs_get_pmap(), since
> > >> + * that's the initial P-state from when the P-map was downloaded
> > >> to the
> > >> + * AVS co-processor, not necessarily the P-state we are running at
> > >> now.
> > >> + * So, we get the current P-state explicitly.
> > >> + */
> > >> + return brcm_avs_get_pstate(priv, &priv->pmap.state);
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> static int brcm_avs_resume(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
> >
> > Just wanted to follow up to see if this has been or will be picked up
> > for 4.10?
>
> For 4.10? No way.
I also thought it might get into 4.10 as these were fixes. Else he would be
required to push them via the 4.10 stable kernel.
--
viresh
