Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: brcmstb-avs-cpufreq: properly retrieve P-state upon suspend

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:53:01 AM Markus Mayer wrote:
> On 5 January 2017 at 20:11, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 19-12-16, 12:10, Markus Mayer wrote:
> >> From: Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com>
> >>
> >> The AVS GET_PMAP command does return a P-state along with the P-map
> >> information. However, that P-state is the initial P-state when the
> >> P-map was first downloaded to AVS. It is *not* the current P-state.
> >>
> >> Therefore, we explicitly retrieve the P-state using the GET_PSTATE
> >> command.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> >>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
> >> index 2c6e325..c943606 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
> >> @@ -784,8 +784,19 @@ static int brcm_avs_target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >>  static int brcm_avs_suspend(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >>  {
> >>       struct private_data *priv = policy->driver_data;
> >> +     int ret;
> >> +
> >> +     ret = brcm_avs_get_pmap(priv, &priv->pmap);
> >> +     if (ret)
> >> +             return ret;
> >>
> >> -     return brcm_avs_get_pmap(priv, &priv->pmap);
> >> +     /*
> >> +      * We can't use the P-state returned by brcm_avs_get_pmap(), since
> >> +      * that's the initial P-state from when the P-map was downloaded to the
> >> +      * AVS co-processor, not necessarily the P-state we are running at now.
> >> +      * So, we get the current P-state explicitly.
> >> +      */
> >> +     return brcm_avs_get_pstate(priv, &priv->pmap.state);
> >>  }
> >>
> >>  static int brcm_avs_resume(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 
> Just wanted to follow up to see if this has been or will be picked up
> for 4.10?

For 4.10?  No way.

> I had a quick poke around some trees and did not see it
> there.

I'm not sure which trees you checked, but it is there in my linux-next branch.

Thanks,
Rafael