From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com (szxga05-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.191]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 240A485931; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 06:23:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.191 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737440594; cv=none; b=oPXh5dkUfZw0gq/Nr9dU7Bw+jdZLl/GH4NwQe6BYUCTxripG+jlDTNHSxJnCNlxF7LT9+UGX46W8DmtUOg2oG190AMS0fiY5XHGU6veu+q11ATwbupfBXwZzcgIKMXu5d49lu04ox5nvaLgZU6sAE9RNdbua78RkjYT2IrUaEuk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737440594; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Q3BlAUuMMxmJJwW+ElGlFONfYopKdKJGV4ozPBV+u90=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=bppOdyP6vvun5P7FaWaxIeAhX0WleGYsuXmw5hKMfxPKUCFtWzjWFOBYVzJuvA3adJfPtK4u0GrdL1uSHSKIrhYYo1FN0lZ4g+xw+7EW8pb8ithj1ljzVquU67pXGyYPPNexHepOV52oNh6NgLIFnsLfeODh1CaGio+DNkzN658= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.191 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.112]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4YccW25Hkdz1kysl; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:19:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemh100008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.93]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 429F61402C3; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:23:00 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.121.90] (10.67.121.90) by kwepemh100008.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:22:59 +0800 Message-ID: <2f9433f1-a826-4198-b4aa-9089f566916f@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:22:59 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] cpufreq: Introduce a more generic way to set default per-policy boost flag To: Viresh Kumar CC: , , , , , , , References: <20250117101457.1530653-1-zhenglifeng1@huawei.com> <20250117101457.1530653-3-zhenglifeng1@huawei.com> <20250120090102.erm2ffkbnwa5vraa@vireshk-i7> <0c910772-368b-4e30-9ce2-1f68510703c4@huawei.com> <20250121042024.pstn2otfqnnajgxl@vireshk-i7> From: "zhenglifeng (A)" In-Reply-To: <20250121042024.pstn2otfqnnajgxl@vireshk-i7> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) To kwepemh100008.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.93) On 2025/1/21 12:20, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 21-01-25, 09:45, zhenglifeng (A) wrote: >> On 2025/1/20 17:01, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> On 17-01-25, 18:14, Lifeng Zheng wrote: >>>> + /* Let the per-policy boost flag mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init */ >>>> + if (policy->boost_enabled != cpufreq_boost_enabled()) { >>>> + policy->boost_enabled = cpufreq_boost_enabled(); >>>> + ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, policy->boost_enabled); >>> >>> I though you agreed to do some optimization here ? >> >> Sorry. Do I miss something here? > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/17c7ed77-21f1-4093-91fc-f3eaa863d312@huawei.com/ > I think I already done that, isn't it?