Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:30:07 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote, > On 26 August 2013 18:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, August 26, 2013 09:11:14 AM Lukasz Majewski wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:36:47 +0530 Viresh Kumar > >> viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote, > >> > On 26 August 2013 12:32, Lukasz Majewski > >> > wrote: > >> > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:58:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar > >> > > viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote, > >> > >> Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :) > >> > > > >> > > Is there any chance to pull those corrected patches to v3.12? > >> > > >> > Only Rafael can decide :) > >> > >> :-) > > > > Well, 3.11 is a week away and the 3.12 merge window will open then. > > > > Honestly, I'd prefer this stuff to spend a couple of weeks in > > linux-next before pushing it to Linus, so this means 3.13 I'm > > afraid. > > +1 Ok. I understand. -- Best regards, Lukasz Majewski Samsung R Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
On 26 August 2013 18:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, August 26, 2013 09:11:14 AM Lukasz Majewski wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:36:47 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org >> wrote, >> > On 26 August 2013 12:32, Lukasz Majewski >> > wrote: >> > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:58:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar >> > > viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote, >> > >> Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :) >> > > >> > > Is there any chance to pull those corrected patches to v3.12? >> > >> > Only Rafael can decide :) >> >> :-) > > Well, 3.11 is a week away and the 3.12 merge window will open then. > > Honestly, I'd prefer this stuff to spend a couple of weeks in linux-next > before pushing it to Linus, so this means 3.13 I'm afraid. +1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
On Monday, August 26, 2013 09:11:14 AM Lukasz Majewski wrote: > On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:36:47 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org > wrote, > > On 26 August 2013 12:32, Lukasz Majewski > > wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:58:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar > > > viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote, > > >> Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :) > > > > > > Is there any chance to pull those corrected patches to v3.12? > > > > Only Rafael can decide :) > > :-) Well, 3.11 is a week away and the 3.12 merge window will open then. Honestly, I'd prefer this stuff to spend a couple of weeks in linux-next before pushing it to Linus, so this means 3.13 I'm afraid. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:36:47 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote,
> On 26 August 2013 12:32, Lukasz Majewski
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:58:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar
> > viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote,
> >> Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :)
> >
> > Is there any chance to pull those corrected patches to v3.12?
>
> Only Rafael can decide :)
:-)
>
> > After your comments I think, that this code could be rewritten:
> >
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(policy, _policy_list,
> > policy_list) { freq_table =
> > cpufreq_frequency_get_table(policy->cpu); if (freq_table) {
> > ret =
> > cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy, freq_table);
> > if (ret) {
> > pr_err("%s: Policy frequency update
> > failed\n")
>
> Don't break strings into multiple lines even if they cross 80
> columns.. And you missed __func__ :)
C code which turned into the pseudo code :-).
>
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > policy->user_policy.max = policy->max;
> > __cpufreq_governor(policy,CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
Samsung R Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
On 26 August 2013 12:32, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:58:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
> wrote,
>> Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :)
>
> Is there any chance to pull those corrected patches to v3.12?
Only Rafael can decide :)
> After your comments I think, that this code could be rewritten:
>
>
> list_for_each_entry(policy, _policy_list, policy_list) {
> freq_table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(policy->cpu);
> if (freq_table) {
> ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy,
> freq_table);
> if (ret) {
> pr_err("%s: Policy frequency update
> failed\n")
Don't break strings into multiple lines even if they cross 80 columns..
And you missed __func__ :)
> break;
> }
>
> policy->user_policy.max = policy->max;
> __cpufreq_governor(policy,CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
> }
> }
>
> return ret;
> }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:58:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote,
> Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :)
Is there any chance to pull those corrected patches to v3.12?
>
> On 13 August 2013 15:38, Lukasz Majewski
> wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +static int cpufreq_boost_set_sw(int state)
> > +{
> > + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
> > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> > + int ret = -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(policy, _policy_list,
> > policy_list) {
> > + freq_table =
> > cpufreq_frequency_get_table(policy->cpu);
> > + if (freq_table) {
> > + ret =
> > cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy,
> > + freq_table);
> > + if (!ret) {
> > + policy->user_policy.max =
> > policy->max;
> > + __cpufreq_governor(policy,
> > CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
> > + }
>
> In case ret wasn't 0 (i.e. we failed), we should print an error
> message and break
> our loop ?
After your comments I think, that this code could be rewritten:
list_for_each_entry(policy, _policy_list, policy_list) {
freq_table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(policy->cpu);
if (freq_table) {
ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy,
freq_table);
if (ret) {
pr_err("%s: Policy frequency update
failed\n")
break;
}
policy->user_policy.max = policy->max;
__cpufreq_governor(policy,CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
}
}
return ret;
}
>
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + if (cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled == state)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + write_lock_irqsave(_driver_lock, flags);
> > + cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled = state;
> > + write_unlock_irqrestore(_driver_lock, flags);
> > +
> > + ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(state);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + write_lock_irqsave(_driver_lock, flags);
> > + cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled = !state;
> > + write_unlock_irqrestore(_driver_lock,
> > flags); +
> > + pr_err("%s: Cannot %s BOOST\n", __func__,
> > + state ? "enabled" : "disabled");
>
> s/enabled/enable and s/disabled/disable
Ok.
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
--
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
Samsung R Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:58:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote,
Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :)
Is there any chance to pull those corrected patches to v3.12?
On 13 August 2013 15:38, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com
wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+static int cpufreq_boost_set_sw(int state)
+{
+ struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
+ struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
+ int ret = -EINVAL;
+
+ list_for_each_entry(policy, cpufreq_policy_list,
policy_list) {
+ freq_table =
cpufreq_frequency_get_table(policy-cpu);
+ if (freq_table) {
+ ret =
cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy,
+ freq_table);
+ if (!ret) {
+ policy-user_policy.max =
policy-max;
+ __cpufreq_governor(policy,
CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
+ }
In case ret wasn't 0 (i.e. we failed), we should print an error
message and break
our loop ?
After your comments I think, that this code could be rewritten:
list_for_each_entry(policy, cpufreq_policy_list, policy_list) {
freq_table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(policy-cpu);
if (freq_table) {
ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy,
freq_table);
if (ret) {
pr_err(%s: Policy frequency update
failed\n)
break;
}
policy-user_policy.max = policy-max;
__cpufreq_governor(policy,CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
}
}
return ret;
}
+ }
+ }
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ if (cpufreq_driver-boost_enabled == state)
+ return 0;
+
+ write_lock_irqsave(cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
+ cpufreq_driver-boost_enabled = state;
+ write_unlock_irqrestore(cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
+
+ ret = cpufreq_driver-set_boost(state);
+ if (ret) {
+ write_lock_irqsave(cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
+ cpufreq_driver-boost_enabled = !state;
+ write_unlock_irqrestore(cpufreq_driver_lock,
flags); +
+ pr_err(%s: Cannot %s BOOST\n, __func__,
+ state ? enabled : disabled);
s/enabled/enable and s/disabled/disable
Ok.
+ }
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
--
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
Samsung RD Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
On 26 August 2013 12:32, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:58:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote,
Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :)
Is there any chance to pull those corrected patches to v3.12?
Only Rafael can decide :)
After your comments I think, that this code could be rewritten:
list_for_each_entry(policy, cpufreq_policy_list, policy_list) {
freq_table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(policy-cpu);
if (freq_table) {
ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy,
freq_table);
if (ret) {
pr_err(%s: Policy frequency update
failed\n)
Don't break strings into multiple lines even if they cross 80 columns..
And you missed __func__ :)
break;
}
policy-user_policy.max = policy-max;
__cpufreq_governor(policy,CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
}
}
return ret;
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:36:47 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote,
On 26 August 2013 12:32, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:58:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar
viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote,
Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :)
Is there any chance to pull those corrected patches to v3.12?
Only Rafael can decide :)
:-)
After your comments I think, that this code could be rewritten:
list_for_each_entry(policy, cpufreq_policy_list,
policy_list) { freq_table =
cpufreq_frequency_get_table(policy-cpu); if (freq_table) {
ret =
cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy, freq_table);
if (ret) {
pr_err(%s: Policy frequency update
failed\n)
Don't break strings into multiple lines even if they cross 80
columns.. And you missed __func__ :)
C code which turned into the pseudo code :-).
break;
}
policy-user_policy.max = policy-max;
__cpufreq_governor(policy,CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
}
}
return ret;
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-pm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
Samsung RD Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
On Monday, August 26, 2013 09:11:14 AM Lukasz Majewski wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:36:47 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote, On 26 August 2013 12:32, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:58:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote, Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :) Is there any chance to pull those corrected patches to v3.12? Only Rafael can decide :) :-) Well, 3.11 is a week away and the 3.12 merge window will open then. Honestly, I'd prefer this stuff to spend a couple of weeks in linux-next before pushing it to Linus, so this means 3.13 I'm afraid. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
On 26 August 2013 18:42, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: On Monday, August 26, 2013 09:11:14 AM Lukasz Majewski wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:36:47 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote, On 26 August 2013 12:32, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:58:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote, Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :) Is there any chance to pull those corrected patches to v3.12? Only Rafael can decide :) :-) Well, 3.11 is a week away and the 3.12 merge window will open then. Honestly, I'd prefer this stuff to spend a couple of weeks in linux-next before pushing it to Linus, so this means 3.13 I'm afraid. +1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:30:07 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote, On 26 August 2013 18:42, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: On Monday, August 26, 2013 09:11:14 AM Lukasz Majewski wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:36:47 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote, On 26 August 2013 12:32, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:58:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote, Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :) Is there any chance to pull those corrected patches to v3.12? Only Rafael can decide :) :-) Well, 3.11 is a week away and the 3.12 merge window will open then. Honestly, I'd prefer this stuff to spend a couple of weeks in linux-next before pushing it to Linus, so this means 3.13 I'm afraid. +1 Ok. I understand. -- Best regards, Lukasz Majewski Samsung RD Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :)
On 13 August 2013 15:38, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +static int cpufreq_boost_set_sw(int state)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> + int ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(policy, _policy_list, policy_list) {
> + freq_table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(policy->cpu);
> + if (freq_table) {
> + ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy,
> + freq_table);
> + if (!ret) {
> + policy->user_policy.max = policy->max;
> + __cpufreq_governor(policy,
> CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
> + }
In case ret wasn't 0 (i.e. we failed), we should print an error
message and break
our loop ?
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + if (cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled == state)
> + return 0;
> +
> + write_lock_irqsave(_driver_lock, flags);
> + cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled = state;
> + write_unlock_irqrestore(_driver_lock, flags);
> +
> + ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(state);
> + if (ret) {
> + write_lock_irqsave(_driver_lock, flags);
> + cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled = !state;
> + write_unlock_irqrestore(_driver_lock, flags);
> +
> + pr_err("%s: Cannot %s BOOST\n", __func__,
> + state ? "enabled" : "disabled");
s/enabled/enable and s/disabled/disable
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
Some minor nitpicking, nothing much :)
On 13 August 2013 15:38, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+static int cpufreq_boost_set_sw(int state)
+{
+ struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
+ struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
+ int ret = -EINVAL;
+
+ list_for_each_entry(policy, cpufreq_policy_list, policy_list) {
+ freq_table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(policy-cpu);
+ if (freq_table) {
+ ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy,
+ freq_table);
+ if (!ret) {
+ policy-user_policy.max = policy-max;
+ __cpufreq_governor(policy,
CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
+ }
In case ret wasn't 0 (i.e. we failed), we should print an error
message and break
our loop ?
+ }
+ }
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ if (cpufreq_driver-boost_enabled == state)
+ return 0;
+
+ write_lock_irqsave(cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
+ cpufreq_driver-boost_enabled = state;
+ write_unlock_irqrestore(cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
+
+ ret = cpufreq_driver-set_boost(state);
+ if (ret) {
+ write_lock_irqsave(cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
+ cpufreq_driver-boost_enabled = !state;
+ write_unlock_irqrestore(cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
+
+ pr_err(%s: Cannot %s BOOST\n, __func__,
+ state ? enabled : disabled);
s/enabled/enable and s/disabled/disable
+ }
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
