From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kasagar, Srinidhi" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] cpufreq: Add SFI based cpufreq driver support Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:54:44 +0530 Message-ID: <20141216102444.GA16158@intel-desktop> References: <20141211081438.GA2885@intel-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:61633 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750952AbaLPKXI (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:08 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Brown, Len" , Viresh Kumar , Linux PM list , vishwesh.m.rudramuni@intel.com, srinidhi.kasagar@intel.com On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 03:15:33AM -0500, Len Brown wrote: [...] > replace line above with... > > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL; But we know the transition latency of this system. Why should we claim it as "unknown"? The sfi_freq_table_entry has latency field - does it not make irrelevant then? > > ondemand will compare this to TRANSITION_LATENCY_LIMIT (10 * 1000 * 1000) > and since -1 is less than 10,000,000; it will be happy. > > > + for (i = 0; i < num_freq_table_entries; i++) { > > + /* detect transition latency */ > > + if ((sfi_cpufreq_array[i].latency * 1000) > > > + policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency) > > + policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = > > + sfi_cpufreq_array[i].latency * 1000; > > delete above 5 lines. every SFI system will have latency > plenty lower than that required by ondemand governor. Srinidhi