Eric Lee / smarc-ti-linux-kernel

30 Apr, 2014

1 commit

07 Apr, 2014

1 commit

  • 7f4b04614   cpufreq: create another field .flags in cpufreq_frequency_table ... Browse Code »

    Currently cpufreq frequency table has two fields: frequency and driver_data.
    driver_data is only for drivers' internal use and cpufreq core shouldn't use
    it at all. But with the introduction of BOOST frequencies, this assumption
    was broken and we started using it as a flag instead.

    There are two problems due to this:
    - It is against the description of this field, as driver's data is used by
    the core now.
    - if drivers fill it with -3 for any frequency, then those frequencies are
    never considered by cpufreq core as it is exactly same as value of
    CPUFREQ_BOOST_FREQ, i.e. ~2.

    The best way to get this fixed is by creating another field flags which
    will be used for such flags. This patch does that. Along with that various
    drivers need modifications due to the change of struct cpufreq_frequency_table.

    Reviewed-by: Gautham R Shenoy
    Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
    Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

    Viresh Kumar
     

12 Mar, 2014

1 commit

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

1 commit

  • c3bc3d67f   cpufreq: ppc_cbe: Use generic cpufreq routines ... Browse Code »

    Most of the CPUFreq drivers do similar things in .exit() and .verify() routines
    and .attr. So its better if we have generic routines for them which can be used
    by cpufreq drivers then.

    This patch uses these generic routines in the ppc_cbe driver.

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

    Viresh Kumar
     

01 Oct, 2013

1 commit

10 Aug, 2013

1 commit

04 Jun, 2013

1 commit

  • 507015880   cpufreq: rename index as driver_data in cpufreq_frequency_table ... Browse Code »

    The "index" field of struct cpufreq_frequency_table was never an
    index and isn't used at all by the cpufreq core. It only is useful
    for cpufreq drivers for their internal purposes.

    Many people nowadays blindly set it in ascending order with the
    assumption that the core will use it, which is a mistake.

    Rename it to "driver_data" as that's what its purpose is. All of its
    users are updated accordingly.

    [rjw: Changelog]
    Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
    Acked-by: Simon Horman
    Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

    Viresh Kumar
     

10 Apr, 2013

1 commit