Re: [PATCH V4 3/3] cpufreq: Tegra: implement intermediate frequency callbacks

Stephen Warren
2014-05-29T17:42:55Z

On 05/22/2014 10:05 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22 May 2014 22:09, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>> I think the call to tegra_target_intermediate() is wrong here; shouldn't
>> the cpufreq core guarantee that tegra_target_intermediate() has always
>> been called before tegra_target(), so there's no need to repeat that
>> call here?

>> Also, tegra_target() doesn't seem to follow the rule documented by patch
>> 2/3 that states ->target() should restore the orignal frequency on
>> error. I'm not even sure if that's possible in general.
>
> I thought I took care of that. Can you please give some example when
> we aren't restoring original frequency on failure ?
>
> About the rule, that has to be the expectation from core as there is no
> way out that for core to know what happened at end of target_index()..
>
> It can call get_rate() but that would be over engineering it looks ..

E.g. in the following code after the series is applied:

> ret = clk_set_rate(pll_x_clk, rate * 1000);
> /* Restore to earlier frequency on error, i.e. pll_x */
> if (ret)
> pr_err("Failed to change pll_x to %lu\n", rate);
>
> ret = clk_set_parent(cpu_clk, pll_x_clk);

If the clk_set_rate() failed, we have no idea what the pll_x rate is; I
don't think the clock API guarantees that zero HW changes have been made
if the function fails. Yet the code switches the CPU clock back to pll_x
without attempting to fix the pll_x rate to be the old rate. Perhaps
there's not much that can be done here though, since if one
clk_set_rate() failed, perhaps the one to fix it will too.

I suspect there are other issues, like switching between pll_p/pllx
might not be restored on error, and the EMC frequency isn't switched
back, etc.