Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: scpi: compare against frequency instead of rate

[zuoqian <zuoqian113@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 04:04:13PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 12:16:50PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > (for some reason I don't have the original email)
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 02:12:14PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 07:53:20AM +0000, zuoqian wrote:
> > > > The CPU rate from clk_get_rate() may not be divisible by 1000
> > > > (e.g., 133333333). But the rate calculated from frequency is always
> > > > divisible by 1000 (e.g., 133333000).
> > > > Comparing the rate causes a warning during CPU scaling:
> > > > "cpufreq: __target_index: Failed to change cpu frequency: -5".
> > > > When we choose to compare frequency here, the issue does not occur.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: zuoqian <zuoqian113@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c | 5 +++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
> > > > index cd89c1b9832c..3bff4bb5ab4a 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c
> > > > @@ -39,8 +39,9 @@ static unsigned int scpi_cpufreq_get_rate(unsigned int cpu)
> > > >  static int
> > > >  scpi_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	u64 rate = policy->freq_table[index].frequency * 1000;
> > > 
> > > policy->freq_table[index].frequency is a u32 so in this original
> > > calculation, even though "rate" is declared as a u64, it can't actually
> > > be more than UINT_MAX.
> > >
> > 
> > Agreed and understood.
> > 
> > > > +	unsigned long freq = policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> > > >  	struct scpi_data *priv = policy->driver_data;
> > > > +	u64 rate = freq * 1000;
> > >
> > > So you've fixed this by casting policy->freq_table[index].frequency
> > > to unsigned long, which fixes the problem on 64bit systems but it still
> > > remains on 32bit systems.  It would be better to declare freq as a u64.
> > >
> > 
> > Just trying to understand if that matters. freq is in kHz as copied
> > from policy->freq_table[index].frequency and we compare it with
> > kHZ below as the obtained clock rate is divided by 1000. What am I
> > missing ? If it helps, it can be renamed as freq_in_khz and even keep
> > it as "unsigned int" as in struct cpufreq_frequency_table.
> > 
> 
> 
> I misunderstood the integer overflow bug because I read too much into the
> fact that "rate" was declared as a u64.  It would have been fine to
> declare it as a unsigned long.  The cpufreq internals don't support
> anything more than ULONG_MAX.  I have heard someone say that new systems
> are bumping up against the 4GHz limit but presumably that would only be
> high end 64bit systems, not old 32bit system.
> 
> The ->freq_table[] frequency is in kHz so a u32 is fine.  I guess if we
> get frequencies of a THz then we'll have to update that.  But when we
> convert to Hz then we need a cast to avoid an integer overflow for systems
> which are over the 4GHz boundary.
> 
> 	unsigned long rate = (unsigned long)khz * 1000;
> 
> The second bug is that we need to compare kHz instead of Hz and that's
> straight forward.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>

Thank you for your valuable feedback.I will make the changes to the patch and 
resubmit it, including renaming freq and keeping it as an "unsigned int".

Regards,
Zuoqian