From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Kaehlcke Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: mediatek: Register an Energy Model Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 10:16:59 -0800 Message-ID: <20190206181659.GI117604@google.com> References: <20190205175225.25923-1-mka@chromium.org> <20190205175225.25923-2-mka@chromium.org> <20190206101316.fr7z4ffr4ck4l4aj@queper01-lin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190206101316.fr7z4ffr4ck4l4aj@queper01-lin> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Quentin Perret Cc: Taniya Das , Nicolas Boichat , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Viresh Kumar , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Douglas Anderson , CK Hu , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, Matthias Brugger , Eddie Huang , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org Hi Quentin, On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:13:18AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > On Tuesday 05 Feb 2019 at 09:52:25 (-0800), Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > Try and register an Energy Model from mediatek-cpufreq to allow > > interested subsystems like the task scheduler to use the provided > > information. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > > index eb8920d398181..e6168ee582783 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > > @@ -460,6 +460,8 @@ static int mtk_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > return ret; > > } > > > > + dev_pm_opp_of_register_em(policy->cpus); > > I'm not familiar with the mediatek-cpufreq driver so bear with me, but > the code sets policy->cpus just below here. Is there any particular > reason for not using that in PM_EM ? You are prefectly right, I missed the obvious and didn't get my hands on hardware yet for testing. So much for screwing up a one-liner ... I'll send a fix. I thought Viresh already applied the patch, however in opp/linux-next I currently only see the other one of this series for qcom-hw, so it seems sending a new version rather than a fix-up patch is the way to go. Thanks for the review! > > cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, &info->cpus); > > policy->freq_table = freq_table; > > policy->driver_data = info; > > Thanks, > Quentin