Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: mediatek: Register an Energy Model

From: Matthias Kaehlcke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 10:16:59 -0800

Hi Quentin,

On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:13:18AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> On Tuesday 05 Feb 2019 at 09:52:25 (-0800), Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > Try and register an Energy Model from mediatek-cpufreq to allow
> > interested subsystems like the task scheduler to use the provided
> > information.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <[email-masked]>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> > index eb8920d398181..e6168ee582783 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> > @@ -460,6 +460,8 @@ static int mtk_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >  		return ret;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	dev_pm_opp_of_register_em(policy->cpus);
> 
> I'm not familiar with the mediatek-cpufreq driver so bear with me, but
> the code sets policy->cpus just below here. Is there any particular
> reason for not using that in PM_EM ?

You are prefectly right, I missed the obvious and didn't get my hands
on hardware yet for testing.

So much for screwing up a one-liner ... I'll send a fix.

I thought Viresh already applied the patch, however in opp/linux-next
I currently only see the other one of this series for qcom-hw, so it
seems sending a new version rather than a fix-up patch is the way to
go.

Thanks for the review!

> >  	cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, &info->cpus);
> >  	policy->freq_table = freq_table;
> >  	policy->driver_data = info;
> 
> Thanks,
> Quentin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel