Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] cpufreq: Add an interface to mark inefficient frequencies

[Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>]

On 14-06-21, 14:35, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:58:35PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 04-06-21, 12:05, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > >  int cpufreq_table_validate_and_sort(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > >  {
> > >  	int ret;
> > > @@ -362,7 +409,13 @@ int cpufreq_table_validate_and_sort(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > >  	if (ret)
> > >  		return ret;
> > >  
> > > -	return set_freq_table_sorted(policy);
> > > +	ret = set_freq_table_sorted(policy);
> > > +	if (ret)
> > > +		return ret;
> > > +
> > > +	set_freq_table_efficiencies(policy);
> > > +
> > > +	return ret;
> > >  }
> > 
> > Lets provide a single callback from the cpufreq core to do all
> > settings related to efficient frequencies and call it from
> > em_dev_register_perf_domain() ?
> 
> Sadly we cannot do it in em_dev_register_perf_domain(). This function is called
> from the cpufreq driver init, when the table isn't available yet.

I looked at all the users of em_dev_register_perf_domain() and each
one of them have the freq table ready at that point of time.

> > 
> > So we only do them for the cpufreq drivers that register themselves
> > with EM.
> 
> Currently, only the EM would set those inefficient OPPs. But it also gives the
> possibility for individual drivers to set them, even if they do not use the EM.

This is exactly why I want those parts of the kernel to call a
specific API to get this done. This shouldn't be done automatically by
the cpufreq core.

-- 
viresh