* [PATCH] cpufreq: scpi: invoke frequency-invariance setter function
@ 2018-02-20 11:10 Dietmar Eggemann
2018-02-21 3:35 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-02-22 22:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dietmar Eggemann @ 2018-02-20 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Commit 343a8d17fa8d ("cpufreq: scpi: remove arm_big_little dependency")
changed the cpufreq driver on juno from arm_big_little to scpi.
The scpi set_target function does not call the frequency-invariance
setter function arch_set_freq_scale() like the arm_big_little set_target
function does. As a result the task scheduler load and utilization
signals are not frequency-invariant on this platform anymore.
Fix this by adding a call to arch_set_freq_scale() into
scpi_cpufreq_set_target().
Fixes: 343a8d17fa8d ("cpufreq: scpi: remove arm_big_little dependency")
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c | 12 +++++++++---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
index c32a833e1b00..3101d4e9c2de 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
@@ -51,13 +51,19 @@ static unsigned int scpi_cpufreq_get_rate(unsigned int cpu)
static int
scpi_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index)
{
+ unsigned long freq = policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
struct scpi_data *priv = policy->driver_data;
- u64 rate = policy->freq_table[index].frequency * 1000;
+ u64 rate = freq * 1000;
int ret;
ret = clk_set_rate(priv->clk, rate);
- if (!ret && (clk_get_rate(priv->clk) != rate))
- ret = -EIO;
+ if (!ret) {
+ if (clk_get_rate(priv->clk) != rate)
+ ret = -EIO;
+
+ arch_set_freq_scale(policy->related_cpus, freq,
+ policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+ }
return ret;
}
--
2.11.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [PATCH] cpufreq: scpi: invoke frequency-invariance setter function
2018-02-20 11:10 [PATCH] cpufreq: scpi: invoke frequency-invariance setter function Dietmar Eggemann
@ 2018-02-21 3:35 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-02-22 22:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2018-02-21 3:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On 20-02-18, 11:10, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> Commit 343a8d17fa8d ("cpufreq: scpi: remove arm_big_little dependency")
> changed the cpufreq driver on juno from arm_big_little to scpi.
>
> The scpi set_target function does not call the frequency-invariance
> setter function arch_set_freq_scale() like the arm_big_little set_target
> function does. As a result the task scheduler load and utilization
> signals are not frequency-invariant on this platform anymore.
>
> Fix this by adding a call to arch_set_freq_scale() into
> scpi_cpufreq_set_target().
>
> Fixes: 343a8d17fa8d ("cpufreq: scpi: remove arm_big_little dependency")
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c | 12 +++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
> index c32a833e1b00..3101d4e9c2de 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -51,13 +51,19 @@ static unsigned int scpi_cpufreq_get_rate(unsigned int cpu)
> static int
> scpi_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index)
> {
> + unsigned long freq = policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> struct scpi_data *priv = policy->driver_data;
> - u64 rate = policy->freq_table[index].frequency * 1000;
> + u64 rate = freq * 1000;
> int ret;
>
> ret = clk_set_rate(priv->clk, rate);
> - if (!ret && (clk_get_rate(priv->clk) != rate))
> - ret = -EIO;
> + if (!ret) {
> + if (clk_get_rate(priv->clk) != rate)
> + ret = -EIO;
> +
> + arch_set_freq_scale(policy->related_cpus, freq,
> + policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
> + }
>
> return ret;
> }
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [PATCH] cpufreq: scpi: invoke frequency-invariance setter function
2018-02-20 11:10 [PATCH] cpufreq: scpi: invoke frequency-invariance setter function Dietmar Eggemann
2018-02-21 3:35 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2018-02-22 22:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-02-26 7:49 ` Dietmar Eggemann
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2018-02-22 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Dietmar Eggemann
<dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
> Commit 343a8d17fa8d ("cpufreq: scpi: remove arm_big_little dependency")
> changed the cpufreq driver on juno from arm_big_little to scpi.
>
> The scpi set_target function does not call the frequency-invariance
> setter function arch_set_freq_scale() like the arm_big_little set_target
> function does. As a result the task scheduler load and utilization
> signals are not frequency-invariant on this platform anymore.
>
> Fix this by adding a call to arch_set_freq_scale() into
> scpi_cpufreq_set_target().
>
> Fixes: 343a8d17fa8d ("cpufreq: scpi: remove arm_big_little dependency")
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
This is really minor, but I would reorder this slightly.
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c | 12 +++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
> index c32a833e1b00..3101d4e9c2de 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -51,13 +51,19 @@ static unsigned int scpi_cpufreq_get_rate(unsigned int cpu)
> static int
> scpi_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index)
> {
> + unsigned long freq = policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> struct scpi_data *priv = policy->driver_data;
> - u64 rate = policy->freq_table[index].frequency * 1000;
> + u64 rate = freq * 1000;
> int ret;
>
> ret = clk_set_rate(priv->clk, rate);
> - if (!ret && (clk_get_rate(priv->clk) != rate))
> - ret = -EIO;
> + if (!ret) {
I would do:
if (ret)
return ret;
arch_set_freq_scale(policy->related_cpus, freq, policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
if (clk_get_rate(priv->clk) != rate)
return -EIO;
return 0;
That's somewhat easier to follow for me.
> + if (clk_get_rate(priv->clk) != rate)
> + ret = -EIO;
> +
> + arch_set_freq_scale(policy->related_cpus, freq,
> + policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
> + }
>
> return ret;
> }
> --
I also am not sure why you want to call arch_set_freq_scale() even if
the new clock rate didn't stick.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [PATCH] cpufreq: scpi: invoke frequency-invariance setter function
2018-02-22 22:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2018-02-26 7:49 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-02-26 9:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dietmar Eggemann @ 2018-02-26 7:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On 02/22/2018 11:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Dietmar Eggemann
> <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Fixes: 343a8d17fa8d ("cpufreq: scpi: remove arm_big_little dependency")
>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
>> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
>> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>
> This is really minor, but I would reorder this slightly.
Tried to figure out what would be the better order. Not sure since I saw
different examples. Can you tell what would be the best tag order?
[...]
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
>> index c32a833e1b00..3101d4e9c2de 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -51,13 +51,19 @@ static unsigned int scpi_cpufreq_get_rate(unsigned int cpu)
>> static int
>> scpi_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index)
>> {
>> + unsigned long freq = policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
>> struct scpi_data *priv = policy->driver_data;
>> - u64 rate = policy->freq_table[index].frequency * 1000;
>> + u64 rate = freq * 1000;
>> int ret;
>>
>> ret = clk_set_rate(priv->clk, rate);
>> - if (!ret && (clk_get_rate(priv->clk) != rate))
>> - ret = -EIO;
>> + if (!ret) {
>
> I would do:
>
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> arch_set_freq_scale(policy->related_cpus, freq, policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
>
> if (clk_get_rate(priv->clk) != rate)
> return -EIO;
>
> return 0;
>
> That's somewhat easier to follow for me.
Yes I can change this.
>
>> + if (clk_get_rate(priv->clk) != rate)
>> + ret = -EIO;
>> +
>> + arch_set_freq_scale(policy->related_cpus, freq,
>> + policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
>> + }
>>
>> return ret;
>> }
>> --
>
> I also am not sure why you want to call arch_set_freq_scale() even if
> the new clock rate didn't stick.
Right, this is much better.
static int
scpi_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index)
{
+ unsigned long freq = policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
struct scpi_data *priv = policy->driver_data;
- u64 rate = policy->freq_table[index].frequency * 1000;
+ u64 rate = freq * 1000;
int ret;
ret = clk_set_rate(priv->clk, rate);
- if (!ret && (clk_get_rate(priv->clk) != rate))
- ret = -EIO;
- return ret;
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (clk_get_rate(priv->clk) != rate)
+ return -EIO;
+
+ arch_set_freq_scale(policy->related_cpus, freq,
+ policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+
+ return 0;
Will send out a v2 as soon as I know the preferred tag order.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [PATCH] cpufreq: scpi: invoke frequency-invariance setter function
2018-02-26 7:49 ` Dietmar Eggemann
@ 2018-02-26 9:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2018-02-26 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Dietmar Eggemann
<dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
> On 02/22/2018 11:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Dietmar Eggemann
>> <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Fixes: 343a8d17fa8d ("cpufreq: scpi: remove arm_big_little dependency")
>>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
>>> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
>>> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>>
>> This is really minor, but I would reorder this slightly.
>
> Tried to figure out what would be the better order. Not sure since I saw
> different examples. Can you tell what would be the best tag order?
I was talking about the patch, not about tags, sorry for the confusion.
Frankly, I don't care about the ordering of the tags. :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-02-26 9:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-02-20 11:10 [PATCH] cpufreq: scpi: invoke frequency-invariance setter function Dietmar Eggemann
2018-02-21 3:35 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-02-22 22:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-02-26 7:49 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-02-26 9:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).