Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: mediatek: Register an Energy Model
From: Matthias Kaehlcke
Date: Wed Feb 06 2019 - 13:17:12 EST
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:13:18AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
> On Tuesday 05 Feb 2019 at 09:52:25 (-0800), Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > Try and register an Energy Model from mediatek-cpufreq to allow
> > interested subsystems like the task scheduler to use the provided
> > information.
> > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> > index eb8920d398181..e6168ee582783 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> > @@ -460,6 +460,8 @@ static int mtk_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > return ret;
> > }
> > + dev_pm_opp_of_register_em(policy->cpus);
> I'm not familiar with the mediatek-cpufreq driver so bear with me, but
> the code sets policy->cpus just below here. Is there any particular
> reason for not using that in PM_EM ?
You are prefectly right, I missed the obvious and didn't get my hands
on hardware yet for testing.
So much for screwing up a one-liner ... I'll send a fix.
I thought Viresh already applied the patch, however in opp/linux-next
I currently only see the other one of this series for qcom-hw, so it
seems sending a new version rather than a fix-up patch is the way to
Thanks for the review!
> > cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, &info->cpus);
> > policy->freq_table = freq_table;
> > policy->driver_data = info;