Re: [PATCH v1 10/10] cpufreq: Pass policy pointer to ->update_limits()

Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-04-08T13:37:37Z

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 1:41 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 12:28 AM srinivas pandruvada
> <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2025-04-07 at 20:48 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 9:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > Since cpufreq_update_limits() obtains a cpufreq policy pointer for
> > > > the
> > > > given CPU and reference counts the corresponding policy object, it
> > > > may
> > > > as well pass the policy pointer to the cpufreq driver's -
> > > > >update_limits()
> > > > callback which allows that callback to avoid invoking
> > > > cpufreq_cpu_get()
> > > > for the same CPU.
> > > >
> > > > Accordingly, redefine ->update_limits() to take a policy pointer
> > > > instead
> > > > of a CPU number and update both drivers implementing it,
> > > > intel_pstate
> > > > and amd-pstate, as needed.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > >
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > > Hi Srinivas,
> > >
> > > If you have any concerns regarding this patch, please let me know
> > > (note that it is based on the [05/10]).
> > >
> > Changes looks fine, but wants to test out some update limits from
> > interrupt path.
> > Checked your branches at linux-pm, not able to locate in any branch to
> > apply.
> > Please point me to a branch.
>
> I'll put it in 'testing' later today.

Now available from

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git testing