On 09/08/17 11:06, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 09-08-17, 10:59, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On 09/08/17 05:18, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> This stores the same handle pointer which is stored in the global variable
>>> below. Right? Why keep a local variable here at all ?
>> Yes, you are right. Initially, started with just private pointers and
>> then added global. I was thinking of calling devm_scmi_handle_get per
>> policy to reflect the refcount correctly and drop global variable. Let
>> me know what you think.
> A refcount of 1 should be fine as well, i.e. For the cpufreq driver. Why would
> SCMI care if we manage multiple policies here ? Unless it makes something 
> within
> SCMI core better.

Not really, just we can get rid of global pointer which may be need in
system with multiple scmi instances, but that's long way to go.

>>> This is something special which is used only when we are returning indexes 
>>> and
>>> I am not sure if this will have benefit here. I will rather return 0 here.
>>> That's what other drivers are doing.
>> Indeed had 0 initially but changed as per Juri's suggestion.
> Maybe he suggested doing that in the fast switch routine ? As that's the 
> normal
> protocol there. Though I have sent a patch today to propose using 0 there as
> well (you cc'd).

Yes, saw that. I have changed both to 0 for now. I will watch that
thread and update if necessary before next posting.

>> But is 0
>> treated as failure and still running at current OPP ?
> You have used that in the ->get() routine. So the OPP isn't changing, but we 
> are
> just trying to fetch it. cpufreq core doesn't do a lot with the value returned
> from here, but at one place we break early if 0 is returned. And so all 
> drivers
> are returning that.

Agreed, I assumed _INVALID is new thing and changed at both target_indes
and fast_switch.

>> and not 0KHz I assume.
> Yeah, 0 KHz is dead CPU really :)


>>> I suppose any CPU can change the frequency of any other CPU here, right? You
>>> must set policy->dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu = true, from ->init() then.
>> OK, I missed to see something like that exists, will do.
> Fairly recent stuff, present in pm/linux-next only.

Oh OK.

>>>> +  /*
>>>> +   * But we need OPP table to function so if it is not there let's
>>>> +   * give platform code chance to provide it for us.
>>>> +   */
>>> How are we getting the OPPs? DT or non DT ?
>> Non DT :), from the firmware.
> I would improve the above comment in that case to clearly say that OPPs are
> added by the platform, lets wait for it.



Reply via email to