Hi Viresh, Thanks for your reply !
On 2020/5/18 15:53, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Sorry for the delay from my side in replying to this thread. > > On 15-05-20, 09:49, Xiongfeng Wang wrote: >> On 2020/5/14 22:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 11:11:03 AM CEST Xiongfeng Wang wrote: >>>> Software-managed BOOST get the boost frequency by check the flag >>>> CPUFREQ_BOOST_FREQ at driver's frequency table. But some cpufreq driver >>>> don't have frequency table and use other methods to get the frequency >>>> range, such CPPC cpufreq driver. >>>> >>>> To add SW BOOST support for drivers without frequency table, we add >>>> members in 'cpufreq_policy.cpufreq_cpuinfo' to record the max frequency >>>> of boost mode and non-boost mode. The cpufreq driver initialize these two >>>> members when probing. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-------- >>>> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 2 ++ >>>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >>>> index 475fb1b..a299426 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >>>> @@ -2508,15 +2508,22 @@ static int cpufreq_boost_set_sw(int state) >>>> int ret = -EINVAL; >>>> >>>> for_each_active_policy(policy) { >>>> - if (!policy->freq_table) >>>> - continue; >>>> - >>>> - ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy, >>>> + if (policy->freq_table) { >>>> + ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy, >>>> policy->freq_table); >>>> - if (ret) { >>>> - pr_err("%s: Policy frequency update failed\n", >>>> - __func__); >>>> - break; >>>> + if (ret) { >>>> + pr_err("%s: Policy frequency update failed\n", >>>> + __func__); >>>> + break; >>>> + } >>>> + } else if (policy->cpuinfo.boost_max_freq) { >>>> + if (state) >>>> + policy->max = policy->cpuinfo.boost_max_freq; >>>> + else >>>> + policy->max = policy->cpuinfo.nonboost_max_freq; >>>> + policy->cpuinfo.max_freq = policy->max; >>>> + } else { >>>> + continue; >>>> } >>> >>> Why do you need to update this function? >> >> My original thought is to reuse the current SW BOOST code as possible, but >> this >> seems to change the cpufreq core too much. >> >> Thanks for your advice. This is better. I will provide a '->set_boost' >> callback >> for CPPC driver. But I will need to export 'cpufreq_policy_list' and make the >> macro 'for_each_active_policy' public. > > This can and should be avoided, I will rather move the for-each-policy > loop in cpufreq_boost_trigger_state() and call ->set_boost() for each > policy and pass policy as argument as well. You would be required to > update existing users of sw boost. Thanks for your advice. It's a good idea. I will change it in the next version. Thanks, Xiongfeng >
