Re: [TEGRA194_CPUFREQ Patch 2/3] cpufreq: Add Tegra194 cpufreq driver

[Viresh Kumar]

On 07-04-20, 23:48, sumitg wrote:
> On 06/04/20 8:25 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 05-04-20, 00:08, sumitg wrote:
> > > On 26/03/20 5:20 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > On 03-12-19, 23:02, Sumit Gupta wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra194-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra194-cpufreq.c
> > > > > +static unsigned int tegra194_get_speed_common(u32 cpu, u32 delay)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +     struct read_counters_work read_counters_work;
> > > > > +     struct tegra_cpu_ctr c;
> > > > > +     u32 delta_refcnt;
> > > > > +     u32 delta_ccnt;
> > > > > +     u32 rate_mhz;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     read_counters_work.c.cpu = cpu;
> > > > > +     read_counters_work.c.delay = delay;
> > > > > +     INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&read_counters_work.work, tegra_read_counters);
> > > > > +     queue_work_on(cpu, read_counters_wq, &read_counters_work.work);
> > > > > +     flush_work(&read_counters_work.work);
> > > > 
> > > > Why can't this be done in current context ?
> > > > 
> > > We used work queue instead of smp_call_function_single() to have long delay.
> > 
> > Please explain completely, you have raised more questions than you
> > answered :)
> > 
> > Why do you want to have long delays ?
> > 
> Long delay value is used to have the observation window long enough for
> correctly reconstructing the CPU frequency considering noise.
> In next patch version, changed delay value to 500us which in our tests is
> considered reliable.

I understand that you need to put a udelay() while reading the freq from
hardware, that is fine, but why do you need a workqueue for that? Why can't you
just read the values directly from the same context ?

-- 
viresh