Hi,

On 2018년 05월 18일 00:47, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:44:08AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2018년 05월 17일 06:10, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>>> The performance, powersave, simpleondemand and userspace governors
>>> determine a target frequency and then adjust it according to the
>>> df->min/max_freq limits that might have been set by user space. This
>>> adjustment is redundant, it is done in update_devfreq() for any
>>> governor, right after governor->get_target_freq().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <m...@chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/devfreq/governor_performance.c    | 10 ++--------
>>>  drivers/devfreq/governor_powersave.c      |  5 -----
>>>  drivers/devfreq/governor_simpleondemand.c |  7 +------
>>>  drivers/devfreq/governor_userspace.c      | 16 ++++------------
>>>  4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/governor_performance.c 
>>> b/drivers/devfreq/governor_performance.c
>>> index 4d23ecfbd948..31ee30622c00 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/devfreq/governor_performance.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/governor_performance.c
>>> @@ -16,14 +16,8 @@
>>>  static int devfreq_performance_func(struct devfreq *df,
>>>                                 unsigned long *freq)
>>>  {
>>> -   /*
>>> -    * target callback should be able to get floor value as
>>> -    * said in devfreq.h
>>> -    */
>>> -   if (!df->max_freq)
>>> -           *freq = UINT_MAX;
>>> -   else
>>> -           *freq = df->max_freq;
>>> +   *freq = UINT_MAX;
>>> +
>>
>> It is difficult to understand why use UINT_MAX instead of df->max_freq.
>>
>> Instead, after merged the commit ab8f58ad72c4 ("PM / devfreq: Set 
>> min/max_freq
>> when adding the devfreq device"), df->max/min_freq have the specific 
>> frequency
>> value always. So, we can change it as following without UINT_MAX. 
>>
>>      *freq = df->max_freq;
> 
> There are two reasons why I don't like to return df->max_freq:
> 
> 1. update_devfreq() already handles the user limits (which is what
> min/max_freq actually are), no need to spread parts of this
> additionally over all governors.

As I already commented, each function have to keep their own role.
Actually, this function doesn't know the future work in update_devfreq().
Only, devfreq_performance_func have to set the maximum frequency to "*freq".
It is role of performance governor.

> 
> 2. I plan to introduce the concept of a devfreq policy [1], which
> would introduce another pair of frequencies, df->policy.min/max, and
> min/max_freq would become df->policy.user.min/max. The governors would
> then return df->policy.user.min/max, which isn't really incorrect
> since update_devfreq() takes care of adjusting the value with
> df->policy.min/max if needed, but it also isn't very clear. And we
> almost certainly shouldn't additionally handle df->policy.min/max in
> the governors.

I have not seen any patch. Also, it is not proper to discuss on this patch
because this patch doesn't include devfreq policy(?).

> 
> I agree though that just returning UINT_MAX isn't very clear either,
> even though that's what some governors are doing currently when
> df->min/max_freq is not set (which can still occur, since user space
> is free to set the value to 0).
> 
> I think there are two better options than returning df->min/max_freq:
> 
> a) create constants DEVFREQ_MIN/MAX_FREQ and return them, this clearly
> states the intent.
> 
> b) return df->scaling_min/max_freq, which is the min/max frequency
> that is actually available on the device side, depending on the
> enabled OPPs.
> 
> A slightly related question: Is it actually intended to keep
> supporting a value of 0 for df->min/max_freq to keep backwards
> compatibility, or should the related code be removed?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Matthias
> 
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10401999/ (first draft, without
> df->policy.min/max)
> 
> 
> 

And when you reply, please remain previous my comments of another point.

-- 
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics

Reply via email to