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 ABEA619309C; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:10:45 +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=1738051848; cv=none; b=i1J8N7j1Ny+26TMh0OktPaTJaKdrp3TAFGoiomWfDzwP21/vZa/fKsS/Kk4VbJsW4oDysfZ9uqCuiEQOVrwvmteymUi9oXkp+80yRWFr5V63O6EoypJ21cApb+wOT0VJoQB8I2sX83uolncNxLdClMWmYoOxsxFRARWvYxFUV3Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738051848; c=relaxed/simple; bh=j2TiKkVSb5PBmqktbpgOCn6ybsu5cpEoBbeAGFdy7ns=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=SpRJuCfv4rZuLxsRIH1AA1zEUb/MRSXT0xCrOwNAlQNHtcFEOH/5VqUN17Tdj1NZXRh+DcmSO1c3ow/v8jyBqhx2yLfjLRsez9hetIfWttUy+Bn2bGWcroooVW5aajBVTfUuf6AIpsZmH7RIBWFPiiVi5qq1ZxGPix/P5+hxBTc= 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 3C098497; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:11:11 -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 5F8AC3F694; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:10:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 09:09:55 +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> <20250124033333.jrqbhuyd6qtogn2c@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: <20250124033333.jrqbhuyd6qtogn2c@vireshk-i7> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 09:03:33AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 23-01-25, 22:45, Beata Michalska wrote: > > 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. > > A return value of 0 should typically mean something went wrong > somewhere and didn't return the right value to us. If smth goes wrong, an error should be returned, shoulnd't it? > > - For the print message, I think we should just print the value > instead of UNKNOWN. Let the user / developer decide what to do with > it. Are you refering to the x86 show_cpuinfo behaviour altered by this patch ? > > - As for trying other mechanism to find the frequency now, maybe you > are right and looking for an alternate way is the right way to go. > And that would be consistent with existing behavior too. > That would mean that changes to show_scaling_cur_freq are fine ? Just trying to clarify things. Thank you. --- BR Beata > -- > viresh