Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: arm_big_little: fix frequency check when bL switcher is active

From: Michael Turquette
Date: Mon Oct 26 2015 - 08:42:41 EST


Quoting Jon Medhurst (Tixy) (2015-10-21 02:55:33)
> The check for correct frequency being set in bL_cpufreq_set_rate is
> broken when the big.LITTLE switcher is active, for two reasons.
>
> 1. The 'new_rate' variable gets overwritten before the test by the
> code calculating the frequency of the old cluster.
>
> 2. The frequency returned by bL_cpufreq_get_rate will be the virtual
> frequency, not the actual one the intended version of new_rate contains.
>
> This means the function always returns an error causing an endless
> stream of: "cpufreq: __target_index: Failed to change cpu frequency: -5"
>
> As the intent is to check for errors that clk_set_rate doesn't report
> lets move the check to immediately after that and directly use
> clk_get_rate, rather than the arm_big_little helpers which only confuse
> matters. Also, update the comment to be hopefully clearer about the
> purpose of the code.
>
> Fixes: 0a95e630b49a ("cpufreq: arm_big_little: check if the frequency is set correctly")
>
> Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Michael Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Fixing exception paths for clk_change_rate is on the TODO list.

Regards,
Mike

> ---
>
> Changes since V1:
> - Check rate using clk_get_rate rather than disabling check when bL
> switcher active
>
> Sudeep, I added your Ack from the last comment on the previous patch.
> This final patch differs from what was discussed only in the commit
> message and in source comment which is hopefully more clear and is
> also satisfactory.
>
> I've also added Michael Turquette's correct email to the CC this time,
> rather than his old Linaro address which was bouncing.
>
> drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c b/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
> index f1e42f8..c5d256c 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
> @@ -149,6 +149,19 @@ bL_cpufreq_set_rate(u32 cpu, u32 old_cluster, u32 new_cluster, u32 rate)
> __func__, cpu, old_cluster, new_cluster, new_rate);
>
> ret = clk_set_rate(clk[new_cluster], new_rate * 1000);
> + if (!ret) {
> + /*
> + * FIXME: clk_set_rate hasn't returned an error here however it
> + * may be that clk_change_rate failed due to hardware or
> + * firmware issues and wasn't able to report that due to the
> + * current design of the clk core layer. To work around this
> + * problem we will read back the clock rate and check it is
> + * correct. This needs to be removed once clk core is fixed.
> + */
> + if (clk_get_rate(clk[new_cluster]) != new_rate * 1000)
> + ret = -EIO;
> + }
> +
> if (WARN_ON(ret)) {
> pr_err("clk_set_rate failed: %d, new cluster: %d\n", ret,
> new_cluster);
> @@ -189,15 +202,6 @@ bL_cpufreq_set_rate(u32 cpu, u32 old_cluster, u32 new_cluster, u32 rate)
> mutex_unlock(&cluster_lock[old_cluster]);
> }
>
> - /*
> - * FIXME: clk_set_rate has to handle the case where clk_change_rate
> - * can fail due to hardware or firmware issues. Until the clk core
> - * layer is fixed, we can check here. In most of the cases we will
> - * be reading only the cached value anyway. This needs to be removed
> - * once clk core is fixed.
> - */
> - if (bL_cpufreq_get_rate(cpu) != new_rate)
> - return -EIO;
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.1.4
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/