From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B671B21AD; Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:45:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737668757; cv=none; b=npv8fczEFc2K3vohOssqjpfyONbPsM5LS9ldSaejN3A9P4WJMAMchlRFdtsMS3on1qWjv0tZepWTsuinfn8RzeRKq6ihrt+a8XPT5HnW8U5XA6HvsR2SqYfqYsc/CPY4vDgGGSlZ6J//7eDqiyD0/L+ippX6nICoOR0SN9EUVwQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737668757; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+VmVPz29tFeLCPrHEmzx7B3FsPgm8Wr9KQehrvv6Ss4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Ku2n7biEcgnRGQTCL9UzZZsUIm8f1uTFV1TmOLh/2LSZCx+6r1FxQzqa6KNVt0XuRXhN4XprfjHA9imhrrGir6hh9Ah2OlgaPPZaYaWyfBugj6vzvSzglatIaZk4wDn/ZuK1FPc+LtYsRr0rqjX/V3VZpfcERNIwyh3EeV41EfA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49BD41063; Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:46:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD5163F66E; Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:45:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:45:12 +0100 From: Beata Michalska To: Viresh Kumar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, ionela.voinescu@arm.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com, will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, rafael@kernel.org, sumitg@nvidia.com, yang@os.amperecomputing.com, vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com, lihuisong@huawei.com, zhanjie9@hisilicon.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] cpufreq: Allow arch_freq_get_on_cpu to return an error Message-ID: References: <20250121084435.2839280-1-beata.michalska@arm.com> <20250121084435.2839280-2-beata.michalska@arm.com> <20250121104706.2gcegucb6hcuksrd@vireshk-i7> <20250122061250.kxdpkkvce4g5nar2@vireshk-i7> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250122061250.kxdpkkvce4g5nar2@vireshk-i7> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 11:42:50AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 21-01-25, 16:14, Beata Michalska wrote: > > Theoretically speaking - it should, though what would 0 actually > > represent then ? > > 0 won't be a failure, that's clear, since errors are represented > differently now. I am not sure what 0 frequency would mean and it can > be left as an architecture specific value, which is a corner case I am > not sure will ever occur. That would mean we are opting for presenting '0' value (whatever that means) instead of trying alternative ways of getting 'current' frequency ? This is still the scaling_cur_freq. --- BR Beata > > -- > viresh