On 04-09-20, 10:43, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > Do you know why it was designed this way in the first place?
No. > I assumed it was designed like this (per-cpu cppc_cpudata structures) to > allow for the future addition of support for the HW_ALL CPPC coordination > type. In that case you can still have PSD (dependency) domains but the > desired performance controls would be per-cpu, with the coordination > done in hardware/firmware. So, in the HW_ALL case you'd end up having > different performance controls even for CPUs in the same policy. > Currently the CPPC driver only supports SW_ANY which is the traditional > cpufreq approach. Then the person who would add that feature will take care of fixing the issues then. We should make sure we handle the current use-case optimally. And a per-cpu thing isn't working well for that. -- viresh
