From: Quentin Perret <qperret@qperret.net>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, edubezval@gmail.com,
agross@kernel.org, tdas@codeaurora.org, swboyd@chromium.org,
ilina@codeaurora.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Move driver initialisation earlier
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:05:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190917130522.GA31601@qperret.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <58e60ca4-9615-bbdf-5fe7-2a0e1d7f48d8@linaro.org>
Hi Daniel
On Tuesday 17 Sep 2019 at 14:47:22 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> On 17/09/2019 11:34, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 04:02:34AM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> >> Allow qcom-hw driver to initialise right after the cpufreq and thermal
> >> subsystems are initialised in core_initcall so we get earlier access to
> >> thermal mitigation.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> >> index 4b0b50403901..04676cc82ba6 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> >> @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ static int __init qcom_cpufreq_hw_init(void)
> >> {
> >> return platform_driver_register(&qcom_cpufreq_hw_driver);
> >> }
> >> -device_initcall(qcom_cpufreq_hw_init);
> >> +postcore_initcall(qcom_cpufreq_hw_init);
> >
> > I am fine with core framework initcall pushed to earlier initcall levels
> > if required, but for individual/platform specific drivers I am not so
> > happy to see that.
> >
> > This goes against the grand plan of single common kernel strategy by
> > Android moving all drivers as modules. We might decide to make this
> > a module.
>
> module = mounted file system = very late initialization
>
> Is that the plan? Force every driver to load too late?
>
> There are core drivers which must be loaded as soon as possible. If the
> qcom driver is one of them, then what is the problem?
>
> "The grand plan" will have to solve this first before doing the module
> move.
>
> > Also there are few cpufreq drivers that are modules. Will
> > they have issues ? If not, why do we need this change at all.
>
> Because some boards don't have thermal issues with the cpufreq drivers
> as module, other boards have.
>
> > Needing
> > thermal mitigation during boot this earlier is still too much of
> > expectation, I would rather boot slowly than relying on this feature.
>
> And what if we want to boot faster? The boot time is one of a key point
> of benchmark.
Could you share test results for this ? It'd be nice to see what if
the gains in boot time outweight the additional pain for android folks
...
Thanks,
Quentin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-17 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-11 22:32 [PATCH 0/5] Initialise thermal framework earlier during boot Amit Kucheria
2019-09-11 22:32 ` [PATCH 1/5] thermal: Initialize thermal subsystem earlier Amit Kucheria
2019-09-16 20:00 ` Daniel Lezcano
2019-09-17 9:18 ` Amit Kucheria
2019-09-19 14:13 ` Zhang Rui
2019-09-11 22:32 ` [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq: Initialise the governors in core_initcall Amit Kucheria
2019-09-17 8:17 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-09-11 22:32 ` [PATCH 3/5] cpufreq: Initialize cpufreq-dt driver earlier Amit Kucheria
2019-09-17 8:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-09-11 22:32 ` [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Move driver initialisation earlier Amit Kucheria
2019-09-17 8:17 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-09-17 9:34 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-09-17 12:47 ` Daniel Lezcano
2019-09-17 13:05 ` Quentin Perret [this message]
2019-09-17 13:20 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-09-20 20:03 ` Amit Kucheria
2019-09-18 9:09 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-09-18 9:17 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-09-18 9:29 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-09-17 12:48 ` Daniel Lezcano
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=20190917130522.GA31601@qperret.net \
--to=qperret@qperret.net \
--cc=agross@kernel.org \
--cc=amit.kucheria@linaro.org \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=edubezval@gmail.com \
--cc=ilina@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=swboyd@chromium.org \
--cc=tdas@codeaurora.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).