Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] Revert "cpufreq: Fix re-boost issue after hotplugging a CPU"

[Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>]

Hello Lifeng,

On 12/4/25 13:09, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
> On 2025/12/4 18:13, Pierre Gondois wrote:
>> policy->max_freq_req represents the maximum allowed frequency as
>> requested by the policyX/scaling_max_freq sysfs file. This request
>> applies to all CPUs of the policy. It is not possible to request
>> a per-CPU maximum frequency.
>>
>> Thus, the interaction between the policy boost and scaling_max_freq
>> settings should be handled by adding a boost specific QoS constraint.
>> This will be handled in the following patches.
>>
>> This reverts commit 1608f0230510489d74a2e24e47054233b7e4678a.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois<pierre.gondois@arm.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ----
>>   1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index 852e024facc3c..11b29c7dbea9e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1478,10 +1478,6 @@ static int cpufreq_policy_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>   
>>   		blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
>>   				CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY, policy);
>> -	} else {
>> -		ret = freq_qos_update_request(policy->max_freq_req, policy->max);
>> -		if (ret < 0)
>> -			goto out_destroy_policy;
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) {
> I don't think this commit should be reverted individually. These changes
> can be included in patch 4, as they are doing the same thing if I
> understand it correctly.

Ok I can do that, unless some else prefers it that way,

Thanks for the review,
Pierre