Eric Lee / smarc-fsl-linux-kernel

26 Jul, 2017

1 commit

  • fe829ed8e   cpufreq: Add CPUFREQ_NO_AUTO_DYNAMIC_SWITCHING cpufreq driver flag ... Browse Code »

    The policy->transition_latency field is used for multiple purposes
    today and its not straight forward at all. This is how it is used:

    A. Set the correct transition_latency value.

    B. Set it to CPUFREQ_ETERNAL because:
    1. We don't want automatic dynamic switching (with
    ondemand/conservative) to happen at all.
    2. We don't know the transition latency.

    This patch handles the B.1. case in a more readable way. A new flag for
    the cpufreq drivers is added to disallow use of cpufreq governors which
    have dynamic_switching flag set.

    All the current cpufreq drivers which are setting transition_latency
    unconditionally to CPUFREQ_ETERNAL are updated to use it. They don't
    need to set transition_latency anymore.

    There shouldn't be any functional change after this patch.

    Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
    Reviewed-by: Dominik Brodowski
    Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

    Viresh Kumar
     

23 Aug, 2016

1 commit

16 Jul, 2014

1 commit

06 Jan, 2014

1 commit

  • ae6b42713   cpufreq: Mark ARM drivers with CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK flag ... Browse Code »

    Sometimes boot loaders set CPU frequency to a value outside of frequency table
    present with cpufreq core. In such cases CPU might be unstable if it has to run
    on that frequency for long duration of time and so its better to set it to a
    frequency which is specified in frequency table.

    On some systems we can't really say what frequency we're running at the moment
    and so for these we shouldn't check if we are running at a frequency present in
    frequency table. And so we really can't force this for all the cpufreq drivers.

    Hence we are created another flag here: CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK that
    will be marked by platforms which want to go for this check at boot time.

    Initially this is done for all ARM platforms but others may follow if required.

    Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
    Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

    Viresh Kumar
     

31 Oct, 2013

1 commit

  • d4019f0a9   cpufreq: move freq change notifications to cpufreq core ... Browse Code »

    Most of the drivers do following in their ->target_index() routines:

    struct cpufreq_freqs freqs;
    freqs.old = old freq...
    freqs.new = new freq...

    cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE);

    /* Change rate here */

    cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE);

    This is replicated over all cpufreq drivers today and there doesn't exists a
    good enough reason why this shouldn't be moved to cpufreq core instead.

    There are few special cases though, like exynos5440, which doesn't do everything
    on the call to ->target_index() routine and call some kind of bottom halves for
    doing this work, work/tasklet/etc..

    They may continue doing notification from their own code as flag:
    CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION is already set for them.

    All drivers are also modified in this patch to avoid breaking 'git bisect', as
    double notification would happen otherwise.

    Acked-by: Hans-Christian Egtvedt
    Acked-by: Jesper Nilsson
    Acked-by: Linus Walleij
    Acked-by: Russell King
    Acked-by: Stephen Warren
    Tested-by: Andrew Lunn
    Tested-by: Nicolas Pitre
    Reviewed-by: Lan Tianyu
    Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
    Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

    Viresh Kumar
     

26 Oct, 2013

1 commit

  • 9c0ebcf78   cpufreq: Implement light weight ->target_index() routine ... Browse Code »

    Currently, the prototype of cpufreq_drivers target routines is:

    int target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int target_freq,
    unsigned int relation);

    And most of the drivers call cpufreq_frequency_table_target() to get a valid
    index of their frequency table which is closest to the target_freq. And they
    don't use target_freq and relation after that.

    So, it makes sense to just do this work in cpufreq core before calling
    cpufreq_frequency_table_target() and simply pass index instead. But this can be
    done only with drivers which expose their frequency table with cpufreq core. For
    others we need to stick with the old prototype of target() until those drivers
    are converted to expose frequency tables.

    This patch implements the new light weight prototype for target_index() routine.
    It looks like this:

    int target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index);

    CPUFreq core will call cpufreq_frequency_table_target() before calling this
    routine and pass index to it. Because CPUFreq core now requires to call routines
    present in freq_table.c CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_TABLE must be enabled all the time.

    This also marks target() interface as deprecated. So, that new drivers avoid
    using it. And Documentation is updated accordingly.

    It also converts existing .target() to newly defined light weight
    .target_index() routine for many driver.

    Acked-by: Hans-Christian Egtvedt
    Acked-by: Jesper Nilsson
    Acked-by: Linus Walleij
    Acked-by: Russell King
    Acked-by: David S. Miller
    Tested-by: Andrew Lunn
    Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
    Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

    Viresh Kumar
     

16 Oct, 2013

3 commits

01 Oct, 2013

2 commits

10 Apr, 2013

1 commit