Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] topology: Allow multiple entities to provide sched_freq_tick() callback

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

On 17-02-21, 00:24, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > index 1e47dfd465f8..47fca7376c93 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > @@ -240,7 +240,6 @@ static struct scale_freq_data amu_sfd = {
> >  
> >  static void amu_fie_setup(const struct cpumask *cpus)
> >  {
> > -	bool invariant;
> >  	int cpu;
> >  
> >  	/* We are already set since the last insmod of cpufreq driver */
> > @@ -257,25 +256,10 @@ static void amu_fie_setup(const struct cpumask *cpus)
> >  
> >  	cpumask_or(amu_fie_cpus, amu_fie_cpus, cpus);
> >  
> > -	invariant = topology_scale_freq_invariant();
> > -
> > -	/* We aren't fully invariant yet */
> > -	if (!invariant && !cpumask_equal(amu_fie_cpus, cpu_present_mask))
> > -		return;
> > -
> 
> You still need these checks, otherwise you could end up with only part
> of the CPUs setting a scale factor, when only part of the CPUs support
> AMUs and there is no cpufreq support for FIE.

Another look at it and here goes another reason (hope I don't have
another in-code comment somewhere else to kill this one) :)

We don't need to care for the reason you gave (which is a valid reason
otherwise), as we are talking specifically about amu_fie_setup() here
and it gets called from cpufreq policy-notifier. i.e. we won't support
AMUs without cpufreq being there in the first place and the same goes
for cppc-driver.

Does that sound reasonable ?

-- 
viresh

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel