All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: arm_big_little: use generic OPP functions for {init,free}_opp_table
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:56:58 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160428112657.GD2915@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1461839114-29857-2-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com>

On 28-04-16, 11:25, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Currently when performing random hotplugs and suspend-to-ram(S2R) on
> systems using arm_big_little cpufreq driver, we get warnings similar to:
> 
> cpu cpu1: _opp_add: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 600000000,
> 	volt: 800000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 600000000, volt: 800000, enabled: 1
> 
> This is mainly because the OPPs for the shared cpus are not set. We can
> just use dev_pm_opp_of_cpumask_add_table in case the OPPs are obtained
> from DT(arm_big_little_dt.c) or use dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus if the
> OPPs are obtained by other means like firmware(e.g. scpi-cpufreq.c)
> 
> Also now that the generic dev_pm_opp_cpumask_remove_table can handle
> removal of opp table and entries for all associated CPUs, we can reuse
> dev_pm_opp_cpumask_remove_table as free_opp_table in cpufreq_arm_bL_ops.
> 
> This patch makes necessary changes to reuse the generic OPP functions for
> {init,free}_opp_table and thereby eliminating the warnings.
> 
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c    | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.h    |  4 +--
>  drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little_dt.c | 21 ++-------------
>  drivers/cpufreq/scpi-cpufreq.c      | 24 ++++++++++++++---
>  4 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
> 
> Hi Viresh,
> 
> Why is dynamic OPPs not deleted in dev_pm_opp_{,cpumask_}remove_table ?
> It would remove some code in scpi-cpufreq.c but I would like to understand.
> Is there any use in not deleting them there ?

That was intentional, consider this case:
- OPPs are added dynamically from platform code
- insmod cpufreq-dt.ko (add static (dt) OPPs as well, mostly fail)
- rmmod  cpufreq-dt.ko (remove all OPPs)

- insmod cpufreq-dt.ko (no more OPPs available, as we removed them both).

That's bad ?

Now, how to fix platforms which don't add dynamic OPPs from platform code? But
something like the scpi driver, which can get inserted/removed again.

This is what I would suggest:
- Even if dev_pm_opp_of_cpumask_remove_table() isn't doing any OF specific
  stuff, lets not update its name and move it out of the ifdef, as it will be
  used only if the user has created OPPs using DT earlier.
- But rather make those two routines call two new routines in the core (which
  don't depend on OF) and implement what these of-remove routines do.
- Add two more routines for removing OPPs created dynamically and call the two
  routines created in previous step.

I hope you followed that :)

> -static void scpi_free_opp_table(struct device *cpu_dev)
> +static void scpi_free_opp_table(cpumask_var_t cpumask)
>  {
> +	struct device *cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_first(cpumask));
> +
> +	cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu_dev->id, cpumask);
> +	dev_pm_opp_cpumask_remove_table(cpumask);
> +	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu_dev->id, cpumask);
> +
>  	scpi_opp_table_ops(cpu_dev, true);
>  }

This was a *really* crazy idea :)

And btw, I think you better move to cpufreq-dt, instead of struggling with this
one :)

-- 
viresh

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-28 11:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-28 10:25 [PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: Remove OF dependency on dev_pm_opp_of_{cpumask_,}remove_table Sudeep Holla
2016-04-28 10:25 ` [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: arm_big_little: use generic OPP functions for {init,free}_opp_table Sudeep Holla
2016-04-28 11:26   ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2016-04-28 12:48     ` Sudeep Holla
2016-04-28 11:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: Remove OF dependency on dev_pm_opp_of_{cpumask_,}remove_table Viresh Kumar
2016-04-28 11:15   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-04-28 11:22   ` Sudeep Holla
2016-04-28 17:07 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] PM / OPP: add non-OF versions of dev_pm_opp_{cpumask_,}remove_table Sudeep Holla
2016-04-28 17:07   ` [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: arm_big_little: use generic OPP functions for {init,free}_opp_table Sudeep Holla
2016-04-29  4:12     ` Viresh Kumar
2016-04-29  4:07   ` [PATCH v2 1/2] PM / OPP: add non-OF versions of dev_pm_opp_{cpumask_,}remove_table Viresh Kumar
2016-04-29  9:22     ` Sudeep Holla
2016-04-29  9:22   ` [PATCH v2 1/2][UPDATE] " Sudeep Holla
2016-04-29  9:28     ` Viresh Kumar
2016-04-29  9:31       ` Sudeep Holla
2016-04-29  9:32         ` Viresh Kumar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160428112657.GD2915@vireshk-i7 \
    --to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=vireshk@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.