On 08-06-16, 02:38, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, June 07, 2016 09:58:07 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 06-06-16, 23:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Since you are adding new code, you can write it so it doesn't do > > > unnecessary checks from the start. > > > > Hmm, I will do all that in this series only now. > > > > > While at it, the "if ((freq < policy->min) || (freq > policy->max))" > > > checks in cpufreq_find_index_l() and cpufreq_find_index_h() don't look > > > good to me, because they very well may cause those function to return > > > -EINVAL even when there's a valid table and that may cause > > > acpi_cpufreq_fast_switch() to do bad things. > > > > Hmm. So, the checks are for sure required here, otherwise we may end up > > returning a frequency which we aren't allowed to. Also note that 'freq' here > > isn't the target-freq, but the entry in the freq-table. > > > > This routine should be returning a valid freq within the ranges specified by > > policy->min/max. > > Which in principle may not be possible if the range doesn't include any > frequency in the table, eg. min == max and between the table entries.
By within ranges I meant, policy->min <= freq <= policy->max, and that's how all our checks are. So even if the table will have a single valid frequency, we will return that only. > However, the CPU has to run at *some* frequency, even if there's none in the > min/max range. I completely agree. But the error will be fired only if there is no frequency within ranges we can switch to. And that's a bug somewhere else then. > And if we are sure that there is at least one valid frequency between min > and max, please note that target_freq has already been clamped between them, Yeah, its already clamped by the freq-change helpers in cpufreq core, but others may not be doing it properly. > > Also note that these routines shall *never* return -EINVAL, otherwise it is > > mostly a bug we are hitting. > > So make them explicitly return a valid frequency every time. I thought about return Index 0 on such errors, will that be fine ? Anyway the new patches have added a WARN() for such cases. > > We have enough checks in place to make sure that there is at least one valid > > entry in the freq-table which is >= policy->min and <= policy->max. > > That assuming that the driver will always do the right thing in its ->verify > callback. Yeah. -- viresh