Re: [PATCH 02/10] cpufreq: OMAP: Add SMP support for OMAP4+

[Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>]

On Thursday 29 August 2013 06:02 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> wrote:
>> From: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
>>
>> On OMAP SMP configuartion, both processors share the voltage
>> and clock. So both CPUs needs to be scaled together and hence
>> needs software co-ordination.
>>
>> Also, update lpj with reference value to avoid progressive error.
>>
>> Adjust _both_ the per-cpu loops_per_jiffy and global lpj. Calibrate
>> them with with reference to the initial values to avoid a
>> progressively bigger and bigger error in the value over time.
>>
>> While at this, re-use the notifiers for UP/SMP since on UP machine or
>> UP_ON_SMP policy->cpus mask would contain only the boot CPU.
>>
>> Based on initial SMP support by Santosh Shilimkar.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
>> [khilman@ti.com: due to overlap/rework, combined original Santosh patch
>>                  and Russell's rework]
>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/cpufreq/omap-cpufreq.c |   80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/omap-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/omap-cpufreq.c
> 
>> +       /*
>> +        * On OMAP SMP configuartion, both processors share the voltage
>> +        * and clock. So both CPUs needs to be scaled together and hence
>> +        * needs software co-ordination. Use cpufreq affected_cpus
>> +        * interface to handle this scenario. Additional is_smp() check
>> +        * is to keep SMP_ON_UP build working.
>> +        */
>> +       if (is_smp()) {
>> +               policy->shared_type = CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ANY;
>> +               cpumask_or(cpumask, cpumask_of(policy->cpu), cpumask);
>> +               cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, cpumask);
>> +       }
> 
> Does somebody remember importance of is_smp() here??
>
Above code was under #ifdef CONFIG_SMP and SMP_ON_UP where config
SMP was enabled as well above steps were not needed.
 
> Current code looks like:
> 
> if (is_smp())
>     cpumask_setall(policy->cpus);
> 
> And I was looking to remove this check if it is no more useful.. And
> so simply do
> 
> cpumask_setall(policy->cpus);
> 
Thats should work I guess. Infact I changed this i downstream kernel
a while back but forgot to send a patch. Just see if for some reason
above can break UP machine since this driver is used on UP machines
as well. Other than that, it should be fine

Regards,
Santosh