From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: powernv: Add support of frequency domain Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:59:35 +0530 Message-ID: <20171218082935.GH19815@vireshk-i7> References: <20171213081937.16376-1-huntbag@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171214044239.GU3322@vireshk-i7> <93cc9d38-4fd8-d340-2263-108329b69b94@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]:40630 "EHLO mail-pf0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752476AbdLRI3j (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2017 03:29:39 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f176.google.com with SMTP id v26so9394733pfl.7 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:29:39 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <93cc9d38-4fd8-d340-2263-108329b69b94@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Abhishek Cc: ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 18-12-17, 10:41, Abhishek wrote: > We need to do it in this way as the current implementation takes the max of > the PMSR of the cores. Thus, when the frequency is required to be ramped up, > it suffices to write to just the local PMSR, but when the frequency is to be > ramped down, if we don't send the IPI it breaks the compatibility with P8. Looks strange really that you have to program this differently for speeding up or down. These CPUs are part of one cpufreq policy and so I would normally expect changes to any CPU should reflect for other CPUs as well. @Goutham: Do you know why it is so ? -- viresh