On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Gautham R. Shenoy <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > The code in powernv-cpufreq, makes the following two assumptions which > are not guaranteed by the device-tree bindings: > > 1) Pstate ids are continguous: This is used in pstate_to_idx() to > obtain the reverse map from a pstate to it's corresponding > entry into the cpufreq frequency table. > > 2) Every Pstate should always lie between the max and the min > pstates that are explicitly reported in the device tree: This > is used to determine whether a pstate reported by the PMSR is > out of bounds. > > Both these assumptions are unwarranted and can change on future > platforms.
While this is a good thing, I wonder if it is worth the complexity. Pstates are contiguous because they define transitions in incremental value of change in frequency and I can't see how this can be broken in the future? Balbir Singh.
