On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 02-03-16, 03:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1772,6 +1772,39 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_unregister_notifie
>> * GOVERNORS *
>> *********************************************************************/
>>
>> +/**
>> + * cpufreq_driver_fast_switch - Carry out a fast CPU frequency switch.
>> + * @policy: cpufreq policy to switch the frequency for.
>> + * @target_freq: New frequency to set (may be approximate).
>> + * @relation: Relation to use for frequency selection.
>> + *
>> + * Carry out a fast frequency switch from interrupt context.
>> + *
>> + * This function must not be called if policy->fast_switch_possible is
>> unset.
>> + *
>> + * Governors calling this function must guarantee that it will never be
>> invoked
>> + * twice in parallel for the same policy and that it will never be called in
>> + * parallel with either ->target() or ->target_index() for the same policy.
>> + *
>> + * If CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID is returned by the driver's ->fast_switch()
>> + * callback, the hardware configuration must be preserved.
>> + */
>> +void cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> + unsigned int target_freq, unsigned int
>> relation)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int freq;
>> +
>> + if (target_freq == policy->cur)
>
> Maybe an unlikely() here ?
>
>> + return;
>> +
>> + freq = cpufreq_driver->fast_switch(policy, target_freq, relation);
>> + if (freq != CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID) {
>> + policy->cur = freq;
>
> Hmm.. What will happen to the code relying on the cpufreq-notifiers
> now ?
It will have a problem.
For that code it's like the CPU changing the frequency and not telling
it (which is not unusual for that matter).
Thanks,
Rafael
