* [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Optimize cpufreq_frequency_table_verify()
2013-09-11 10:13 [PATCH 0/5] CPUFreq: Last set of updates for 3.13 Viresh Kumar
@ 2013-09-11 10:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-09-11 10:13 ` [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq: rename __cpufreq_set_policy() as cpufreq_set_policy() Viresh Kumar
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2013-09-11 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rjw; +Cc: linaro-kernel, patches, cpufreq, linux-pm, linux-kernel,
Viresh Kumar
cpufreq_frequency_table_verify() is a bit rewritten here to make it more logical
and optimal.
- merge multiple lines for variable declarations together.
- quit early if any frequency between min/max is found.
- don't call cpufreq_verify_within_limits() in case any valid freq is found as
it is of no use.
- count renamed as found and made a boolean.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c | 25 +++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c b/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c
index f111454a..53a2f1a 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c
@@ -54,9 +54,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo);
int cpufreq_frequency_table_verify(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
struct cpufreq_frequency_table *table)
{
- unsigned int next_larger = ~0;
- unsigned int i;
- unsigned int count = 0;
+ unsigned int next_larger = ~0, freq, i = 0;
+ bool found = false;
pr_debug("request for verification of policy (%u - %u kHz) for cpu %u\n",
policy->min, policy->max, policy->cpu);
@@ -64,21 +63,23 @@ int cpufreq_frequency_table_verify(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
- for (i = 0; (table[i].frequency != CPUFREQ_TABLE_END); i++) {
- unsigned int freq = table[i].frequency;
+ for (; freq = table[i].frequency, freq != CPUFREQ_TABLE_END; i++) {
if (freq == CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID)
continue;
- if ((freq >= policy->min) && (freq <= policy->max))
- count++;
- else if ((next_larger > freq) && (freq > policy->max))
+ if ((freq >= policy->min) && (freq <= policy->max)) {
+ found = true;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ if ((next_larger > freq) && (freq > policy->max))
next_larger = freq;
}
- if (!count)
+ if (!found) {
policy->max = next_larger;
-
- cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
- policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+ cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
+ policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+ }
pr_debug("verification lead to (%u - %u kHz) for cpu %u\n",
policy->min, policy->max, policy->cpu);
--
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq: rename __cpufreq_set_policy() as cpufreq_set_policy()
2013-09-11 10:13 [PATCH 0/5] CPUFreq: Last set of updates for 3.13 Viresh Kumar
2013-09-11 10:13 ` [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Optimize cpufreq_frequency_table_verify() Viresh Kumar
@ 2013-09-11 10:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-09-11 10:13 ` [PATCH 3/5] cpufreq: rewrite cpufreq_driver->flags using shift operator Viresh Kumar
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2013-09-11 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rjw; +Cc: linaro-kernel, patches, cpufreq, linux-pm, linux-kernel,
Viresh Kumar
Earlier there used to be two functions named __cpufreq_set_policy() and
cpufreq_set_policy(), but now we only have a single routine lets name it
cpufreq_set_policy() instead of __cpufreq_set_policy().
This also removes some invalid comments or fixes some incorrect comments.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 22 +++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 5a64f66..749bf06 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ show_one(scaling_min_freq, min);
show_one(scaling_max_freq, max);
show_one(scaling_cur_freq, cur);
-static int __cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
+static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
struct cpufreq_policy *new_policy);
/**
@@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static ssize_t store_##file_name \
if (ret != 1) \
return -EINVAL; \
\
- ret = __cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy); \
+ ret = cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy); \
policy->user_policy.object = policy->object; \
\
return ret ? ret : count; \
@@ -493,11 +493,7 @@ static ssize_t store_scaling_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
&new_policy.governor))
return -EINVAL;
- /*
- * Do not use cpufreq_set_policy here or the user_policy.max
- * will be wrongly overridden
- */
- ret = __cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
+ ret = cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
policy->user_policy.policy = policy->policy;
policy->user_policy.governor = policy->governor;
@@ -844,11 +840,11 @@ static void cpufreq_init_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
int ret = 0;
memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy));
- /* assure that the starting sequence is run in __cpufreq_set_policy */
+ /* assure that the starting sequence is run in cpufreq_set_policy */
policy->governor = NULL;
/* set default policy */
- ret = __cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
+ ret = cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
policy->user_policy.policy = policy->policy;
policy->user_policy.governor = policy->governor;
@@ -1844,10 +1840,10 @@ int cpufreq_get_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cpu)
EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_get_policy);
/*
- * data : current policy.
- * policy : policy to be set.
+ * policy : current policy.
+ * new_policy: policy to be set.
*/
-static int __cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
+static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
struct cpufreq_policy *new_policy)
{
int ret = 0, failed = 1;
@@ -1996,7 +1992,7 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
}
}
- ret = __cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
+ ret = cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);
--
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [PATCH 3/5] cpufreq: rewrite cpufreq_driver->flags using shift operator
2013-09-11 10:13 [PATCH 0/5] CPUFreq: Last set of updates for 3.13 Viresh Kumar
2013-09-11 10:13 ` [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Optimize cpufreq_frequency_table_verify() Viresh Kumar
2013-09-11 10:13 ` [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq: rename __cpufreq_set_policy() as cpufreq_set_policy() Viresh Kumar
@ 2013-09-11 10:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-09-11 10:13 ` [PATCH 4/5] cpufreq: use cpufreq_driver->flags to mark CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY Viresh Kumar
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2013-09-11 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rjw; +Cc: linaro-kernel, patches, cpufreq, linux-pm, linux-kernel,
Viresh Kumar
Currently cpufreq_driver's flags are defined directly using 0x1, 0x2, 0x4, 0x8,
etc.. As the list grows it doesn't stays much readable..
Lets use bitwise shift operator << to generate these numbers for respective
positions.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
include/linux/cpufreq.h | 15 ++++++++-------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
index fcabc42..c71dc0f 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
@@ -211,13 +211,14 @@ struct cpufreq_driver {
};
/* flags */
-#define CPUFREQ_STICKY 0x01 /* the driver isn't removed even if
- * all ->init() calls failed */
-#define CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS 0x02 /* loops_per_jiffy or other kernel
- * "constants" aren't affected by
- * frequency transitions */
-#define CPUFREQ_PM_NO_WARN 0x04 /* don't warn on suspend/resume speed
- * mismatches */
+#define CPUFREQ_STICKY (1 << 0) /* driver isn't removed even if
+ all ->init() calls failed */
+#define CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS (1 << 1) /* loops_per_jiffy or other
+ kernel "constants" aren't
+ affected by frequency
+ transitions */
+#define CPUFREQ_PM_NO_WARN (1 << 2) /* don't warn on suspend/resume
+ speed mismatches */
int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
--
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4/5] cpufreq: use cpufreq_driver->flags to mark CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY
2013-09-11 10:13 [PATCH 0/5] CPUFreq: Last set of updates for 3.13 Viresh Kumar
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-09-11 10:13 ` [PATCH 3/5] cpufreq: rewrite cpufreq_driver->flags using shift operator Viresh Kumar
@ 2013-09-11 10:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-09-11 10:13 ` [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: add new routine cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits() Viresh Kumar
2013-09-11 10:53 ` [PATCH 0/5] CPUFreq: Last set of updates for 3.13 Amit Kucheria
5 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2013-09-11 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rjw; +Cc: linaro-kernel, patches, cpufreq, linux-pm, linux-kernel,
Viresh Kumar
Lets use cpufreq_driver->flags to mark CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY instead
of a separate field within cpufreq_driver. This will save some bytes for us.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c | 4 ++--
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h | 5 ++++-
include/linux/cpufreq.h | 15 ++++++++-------
4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c b/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
index 3549f07..768aa9c 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
@@ -214,13 +214,13 @@ static struct freq_attr *bL_cpufreq_attr[] = {
static struct cpufreq_driver bL_cpufreq_driver = {
.name = "arm-big-little",
- .flags = CPUFREQ_STICKY,
+ .flags = CPUFREQ_STICKY |
+ CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY,
.verify = bL_cpufreq_verify_policy,
.target = bL_cpufreq_set_target,
.get = bL_cpufreq_get,
.init = bL_cpufreq_init,
.exit = bL_cpufreq_exit,
- .have_governor_per_policy = true,
.attr = bL_cpufreq_attr,
};
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 749bf06..3ac98a5 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpufreq_governor_mutex);
bool have_governor_per_policy(void)
{
- return cpufreq_driver->have_governor_per_policy;
+ return !!(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(have_governor_per_policy);
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
index 88cd39f..b5f2b86 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
@@ -191,7 +191,10 @@ struct common_dbs_data {
struct attribute_group *attr_group_gov_sys; /* one governor - system */
struct attribute_group *attr_group_gov_pol; /* one governor - policy */
- /* Common data for platforms that don't set have_governor_per_policy */
+ /*
+ * Common data for platforms that don't set
+ * CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY
+ */
struct dbs_data *gdbs_data;
struct cpu_dbs_common_info *(*get_cpu_cdbs)(int cpu);
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
index c71dc0f..e0a9f15 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
@@ -180,13 +180,6 @@ __ATTR(_name, 0644, show_##_name, store_##_name)
struct cpufreq_driver {
char name[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN];
u8 flags;
- /*
- * This should be set by platforms having multiple clock-domains, i.e.
- * supporting multiple policies. With this sysfs directories of governor
- * would be created in cpu/cpu<num>/cpufreq/ directory and so they can
- * use the same governor with different tunables for different clusters.
- */
- bool have_governor_per_policy;
/* needed by all drivers */
int (*init) (struct cpufreq_policy *policy);
@@ -220,6 +213,14 @@ struct cpufreq_driver {
#define CPUFREQ_PM_NO_WARN (1 << 2) /* don't warn on suspend/resume
speed mismatches */
+/*
+ * This should be set by platforms having multiple clock-domains, i.e.
+ * supporting multiple policies. With this sysfs directories of governor would
+ * be created in cpu/cpu<num>/cpufreq/ directory and so they can use the same
+ * governor with different tunables for different clusters.
+ */
+#define CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY (1 << 3)
+
int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
--
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: add new routine cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits()
2013-09-11 10:13 [PATCH 0/5] CPUFreq: Last set of updates for 3.13 Viresh Kumar
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-09-11 10:13 ` [PATCH 4/5] cpufreq: use cpufreq_driver->flags to mark CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY Viresh Kumar
@ 2013-09-11 10:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-09-11 10:53 ` [PATCH 0/5] CPUFreq: Last set of updates for 3.13 Amit Kucheria
5 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2013-09-11 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rjw; +Cc: linaro-kernel, patches, cpufreq, linux-pm, linux-kernel,
Viresh Kumar
Most of the users of cpufreq_verify_within_limits() calls it for limiting with
min/max from policy->cpuinfo. We can make that code simple by introducing
another routine which will do this for them automatically.
This patch adds another routine cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits() and updates
others to use it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c | 4 +---
drivers/cpufreq/davinci-cpufreq.c | 4 +---
drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c | 6 ++----
drivers/cpufreq/integrator-cpufreq.c | 9 ++-------
drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 4 +---
drivers/cpufreq/longrun.c | 4 +---
drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c | 3 +--
drivers/cpufreq/sh-cpufreq.c | 7 ++-----
drivers/cpufreq/unicore2-cpufreq.c | 4 +---
include/linux/cpufreq.h | 7 +++++++
10 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c
index b83d45f6..56c964c 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c
@@ -303,9 +303,7 @@ static int nforce2_verify(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
if (policy->min < (fsb_pol_max * fid * 100))
policy->max = (fsb_pol_max + 1) * fid * 100;
- cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy,
- policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
- policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
return 0;
}
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/davinci-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/davinci-cpufreq.c
index 551dd65..d049937 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/davinci-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/davinci-cpufreq.c
@@ -50,9 +50,7 @@ static int davinci_verify_speed(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
if (policy->cpu)
return -EINVAL;
- cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
- policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
-
+ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
policy->min = clk_round_rate(armclk, policy->min * 1000) / 1000;
policy->max = clk_round_rate(armclk, policy->max * 1000) / 1000;
cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c b/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c
index 53a2f1a..29ff77f 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c
@@ -60,8 +60,7 @@ int cpufreq_frequency_table_verify(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
pr_debug("request for verification of policy (%u - %u kHz) for cpu %u\n",
policy->min, policy->max, policy->cpu);
- cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
- policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
for (; freq = table[i].frequency, freq != CPUFREQ_TABLE_END; i++) {
if (freq == CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID)
@@ -77,8 +76,7 @@ int cpufreq_frequency_table_verify(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
if (!found) {
policy->max = next_larger;
- cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
- policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
}
pr_debug("verification lead to (%u - %u kHz) for cpu %u\n",
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/integrator-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/integrator-cpufreq.c
index f7c99df..8152a9b 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/integrator-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/integrator-cpufreq.c
@@ -59,9 +59,7 @@ static int integrator_verify_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
{
struct icst_vco vco;
- cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy,
- policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
- policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
vco = icst_hz_to_vco(&cclk_params, policy->max * 1000);
policy->max = icst_hz(&cclk_params, vco) / 1000;
@@ -69,10 +67,7 @@ static int integrator_verify_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
vco = icst_hz_to_vco(&cclk_params, policy->min * 1000);
policy->min = icst_hz(&cclk_params, vco) / 1000;
- cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy,
- policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
- policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
-
+ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
return 0;
}
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
index 9733f29..a02bd77 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
@@ -611,9 +611,7 @@ static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
static int intel_pstate_verify_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
{
- cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy,
- policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
- policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
if ((policy->policy != CPUFREQ_POLICY_POWERSAVE) &&
(policy->policy != CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE))
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/longrun.c b/drivers/cpufreq/longrun.c
index 5aa0316..074971b 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/longrun.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/longrun.c
@@ -129,9 +129,7 @@ static int longrun_verify_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
return -EINVAL;
policy->cpu = 0;
- cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy,
- policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
- policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
if ((policy->policy != CPUFREQ_POLICY_POWERSAVE) &&
(policy->policy != CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE))
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c
index d81c4e5..78787e9 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c
@@ -111,8 +111,7 @@ static struct pcc_cpu __percpu *pcc_cpu_info;
static int pcc_cpufreq_verify(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
{
- cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
- policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
return 0;
}
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/sh-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/sh-cpufreq.c
index ffc6d24..f671aa1 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/sh-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/sh-cpufreq.c
@@ -87,15 +87,12 @@ static int sh_cpufreq_verify(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
if (freq_table)
return cpufreq_frequency_table_verify(policy, freq_table);
- cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
- policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
policy->min = (clk_round_rate(cpuclk, 1) + 500) / 1000;
policy->max = (clk_round_rate(cpuclk, ~0UL) + 500) / 1000;
- cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
- policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
-
+ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
return 0;
}
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/unicore2-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/unicore2-cpufreq.c
index b225f04..14e6d31 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/unicore2-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/unicore2-cpufreq.c
@@ -29,9 +29,7 @@ static int ucv2_verify_speed(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
if (policy->cpu)
return -EINVAL;
- cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy,
- policy->cpuinfo.min_freq, policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
-
+ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
return 0;
}
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
index e0a9f15..7f1dd61 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
@@ -242,6 +242,13 @@ static inline void cpufreq_verify_within_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
return;
}
+static inline void
+cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
+{
+ cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy->cpuinfo.min_freq,
+ policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+}
+
/*********************************************************************
* CPUFREQ NOTIFIER INTERFACE *
*********************************************************************/
--
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 0/5] CPUFreq: Last set of updates for 3.13
2013-09-11 10:13 [PATCH 0/5] CPUFreq: Last set of updates for 3.13 Viresh Kumar
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-09-11 10:13 ` [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: add new routine cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits() Viresh Kumar
@ 2013-09-11 10:53 ` Amit Kucheria
2013-09-11 10:59 ` Viresh Kumar
5 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Amit Kucheria @ 2013-09-11 10:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Lists linaro-kernel, Linux PM list,
Patch Tracking, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, Lists LAKML
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> I really tried to stop after you asked me to, but still got few more patches..
> These are very minor changes and a fairly smaller patchset..
>
> I have rebased this over your linux-next branch
>
> 7c218b1 Merge branch 'acpi-bind-next' into linux-next
>
> and tested over my exynos board.. I don't expect them to do any crappy stuff..
>
> You can include these first (if they look fine) and then I will send all other
> patches that I have queued up for 3.13.. I will send all of them in one lot,
> with partition numbers mentioned (i.e. patches that should go together) and then
> you can apply them the way you wish.. Set by set or all at once..
>
> Thanks..
Viresh,
Thanks for the great work cleaning up all the drivers. IIUC, you have
~200 patches lined up for the 3.13 merge window. That causes some
worries.
Can we quickly do the following to get more confidence that there
won't be wide-spread breakage:
1. Get all of these into linux-next quickly
2. Set up a LAVA[1] job to get linux-next kernels running on boards in our farm
3. Run cpufreq functional tests, e.g. PM-QA[2] test suite from Linaro
with these kernels
Regards,
Amit
[1] An automated test harness used by Linaro
[2] https://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=tools/pm-qa.git;a=tree;f=cpufreq;h=b53f7ad0fe778011d75e94ec7bd2b2fc1fc4cfd7;hb=HEAD
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 0/5] CPUFreq: Last set of updates for 3.13
2013-09-11 10:53 ` [PATCH 0/5] CPUFreq: Last set of updates for 3.13 Amit Kucheria
@ 2013-09-11 10:59 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2013-09-11 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Amit Kucheria
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Lists linaro-kernel, Linux PM list,
Patch Tracking, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, Lists LAKML
On 11 September 2013 16:23, Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org> wrote:
> Thanks for the great work cleaning up all the drivers. IIUC, you have
> ~200 patches lined up for the 3.13 merge window.
227 to be precise :)
> That causes some worries.
>
> Can we quickly do the following to get more confidence that there
> won't be wide-spread breakage:
>
> 1. Get all of these into linux-next quickly
Yes, even Myself and Rafael wanted to do that.. And were waiting
for pull request to go for 3.12-rc1..
I am mostly ready with my patches, wouldn't take long time for
me to review those completely before sending them..
> 2. Set up a LAVA[1] job to get linux-next kernels running on boards in our farm
> 3. Run cpufreq functional tests, e.g. PM-QA[2] test suite from Linaro
> with these kernels
That would be nice actually.. Anyway some people would test it on
linux-next, but doing that for few boards by Linaro would be
Awesome..
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread