The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
To: <rafael@kernel.org>, <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	<pierre.gondois@arm.com>, <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
	<ionela.voinescu@arm.com>, <zhenglifeng1@huawei.com>,
	<zhanjie9@hisilicon.com>, <lenb@kernel.org>,
	<saket.dumbre@intel.co>, <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev>,
	<linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <treding@nvidia.com>, <jonathanh@nvidia.com>, <vsethi@nvidia.com>,
	<ksitaraman@nvidia.com>, <sanjayc@nvidia.com>, <mochs@nvidia.com>,
	<bbasu@nvidia.com>, <sumitg@nvidia.com>
Subject: [PATCH v7 3/3] cpufreq: CPPC: Reflect the OSPM nominal in boost and limits
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2026 03:18:37 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260807214837.863209-4-sumitg@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260807214837.863209-1-sumitg@nvidia.com>

Boost is the performance range above nominal, so lowering the OSPM
Nominal Performance enlarges the boost range and drops the non-boost
ceiling. Keep the policy limits consistent with the register.

Add cppc_cpufreq_effective_nominal(), which returns the OSPM Nominal
Performance when set and the platform nominal otherwise. Use it for the
non-boost ceiling in set_boost(), and to update the policy limits when
ospm_nominal_freq is written.

The cpufreq core caps scaling_max_freq with a per-policy QoS request,
boost_freq_req, that it sets to cpuinfo.max_freq and refreshes only when
boost is toggled. A write to ospm_nominal_freq changes cpuinfo.max_freq
without toggling boost, so cppc_cpufreq_update_nominal_limits() updates
the request itself, rather than leaving scaling_max_freq at the old
nominal.

When boost is enabled the ceiling is highest_perf, not the nominal, so
the update is skipped. set_boost() applies the new nominal when boost is
turned off.

A platform with highest_perf == nominal_perf has no boost range at boot.
Lowering the OSPM nominal from sysfs can create one. The core, however,
adds its boost FREQ_QOS_MAX request only at policy setup, and only if
boost_supported is already set. Set boost_supported in init() when the
OSPM register is supported and highest_perf > lowest_perf. Boost can
then be enabled after the nominal is lowered.

Suggested-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
index fe714e71826a..bcac46ad25c3 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
@@ -892,6 +892,27 @@ static void cppc_cpufreq_put_cpu_data(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 	policy->driver_data = NULL;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Return the non-boost performance ceiling: the OSPM Nominal Performance the
+ * driver last requested, or the platform-reported Nominal Performance if none
+ * was requested.
+ *
+ * The register is write-only, so the requested value comes from the
+ * software-tracked state rather than from hardware.
+ */
+static u32 cppc_cpufreq_effective_nominal(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
+{
+	const struct cppc_saved_vals *st = cppc_cpufreq_policy_state(policy)->regs;
+	struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data = policy->driver_data;
+	u64 ospm_nominal = st[CPPC_SAVED_OSPM_NOMINAL_PERF].requested_val;
+
+	/* U64_MAX means OSPM has not selected a nominal level. */
+	if (ospm_nominal == U64_MAX)
+		return cpu_data->perf_caps.nominal_perf;
+
+	return (u32)ospm_nominal;
+}
+
 static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 {
 	unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu;
@@ -950,9 +971,14 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 
 	/*
 	 * If 'highest_perf' is greater than 'nominal_perf', we assume CPU Boost
-	 * is supported.
+	 * is supported. A writable OSPM Nominal Performance register can also
+	 * open a boost range at runtime by lowering the nominal, so assume
+	 * boost is supported in that case too, letting the core register its
+	 * QoS request up front.
 	 */
-	if (caps->highest_perf > caps->nominal_perf)
+	if (caps->highest_perf > caps->nominal_perf ||
+	    (caps->highest_perf > caps->lowest_perf &&
+	     cppc_ospm_nominal_perf_supported(cpu)))
 		policy->boost_supported = true;
 
 	/* Set policy->cur to max now. The governors will adjust later. */
@@ -1233,11 +1259,12 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_set_boost(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, int state)
 {
 	struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data = policy->driver_data;
 	struct cppc_perf_caps *caps = &cpu_data->perf_caps;
+	u32 nominal = cppc_cpufreq_effective_nominal(policy);
 
 	if (state)
 		policy->cpuinfo.max_freq = cppc_perf_to_khz(caps, caps->highest_perf);
 	else
-		policy->cpuinfo.max_freq = cppc_perf_to_khz(caps, caps->nominal_perf);
+		policy->cpuinfo.max_freq = cppc_perf_to_khz(caps, nominal);
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -1411,6 +1438,36 @@ static int cppc_get_perf_limited_filtered(int cpu, u64 *perf_limited)
 CPPC_CPUFREQ_ATTR_RW_U64(perf_limited, cppc_get_perf_limited_filtered,
 			 cppc_set_perf_limited)
 
+/*
+ * While boost is disabled, the nominal is the ceiling. Set cpuinfo.max_freq to
+ * it and update the core's boost_freq_req to match. The core only syncs
+ * boost_freq_req when boost is enabled or disabled, so a plain nominal change
+ * must update it here.
+ */
+static void cppc_cpufreq_update_nominal_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
+{
+	struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data = policy->driver_data;
+	u32 nominal;
+	int ret;
+
+	if (policy->boost_enabled)
+		return;
+
+	nominal = cppc_cpufreq_effective_nominal(policy);
+	policy->cpuinfo.max_freq = cppc_perf_to_khz(&cpu_data->perf_caps,
+						    nominal);
+
+	if (freq_qos_request_active(&policy->boost_freq_req)) {
+		ret = freq_qos_update_request(&policy->boost_freq_req,
+					      policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+		if (ret < 0)
+			pr_debug("Failed to update boost limit on CPU%u (%d)\n",
+				 policy->cpu, ret);
+	}
+
+	refresh_frequency_limits(policy);
+}
+
 static ssize_t store_ospm_nominal_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 				       const char *buf, size_t count)
 {
@@ -1442,6 +1499,8 @@ static ssize_t store_ospm_nominal_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 	st->requested_val = perf;
 	st->firmware_val = cpu_data->perf_caps.nominal_perf;
 
+	cppc_cpufreq_update_nominal_limits(policy);
+
 	return count;
 }
 
-- 
2.34.1


      parent reply	other threads:[~2026-08-07 21:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-07 21:48 [PATCH v7 0/3] ACPI / cpufreq: CPPC: Add ospm_nominal_perf support Sumit Gupta
2026-08-07 21:48 ` [PATCH v7 1/3] ACPI: " Sumit Gupta
2026-08-07 21:48 ` [PATCH v7 2/3] cpufreq: CPPC: Add ospm_nominal_freq attribute Sumit Gupta
2026-08-07 21:48 ` Sumit Gupta [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260807214837.863209-4-sumitg@nvidia.com \
    --to=sumitg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=bbasu@nvidia.com \
    --cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
    --cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
    --cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
    --cc=ksitaraman@nvidia.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
    --cc=mochs@nvidia.com \
    --cc=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=saket.dumbre@intel.co \
    --cc=sanjayc@nvidia.com \
    --cc=treding@nvidia.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --cc=vsethi@nvidia.com \
    --cc=zhanjie9@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=zhenglifeng1@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox