Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: brcmstb-avs-cpufreq: properly retrieve P-state upon suspend

[Markus Mayer]

On 1 February 2017 at 15:44, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:53:01 AM Markus Mayer wrote:
>> On 5 January 2017 at 20:11, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On 19-12-16, 12:10, Markus Mayer wrote:
>> >> From: Markus Mayer <mmayer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>
>> >> The AVS GET_PMAP command does return a P-state along with the P-map
>> >> information. However, that P-state is the initial P-state when the
>> >> P-map was first downloaded to AVS. It is *not* the current P-state.
>> >>
>> >> Therefore, we explicitly retrieve the P-state using the GET_PSTATE
>> >> command.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mmayer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >>  drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>> >>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
>> >> index 2c6e325..c943606 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
>> >> @@ -784,8 +784,19 @@ static int brcm_avs_target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> >>  static int brcm_avs_suspend(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> >>  {
>> >>       struct private_data *priv = policy->driver_data;
>> >> +     int ret;
>> >> +
>> >> +     ret = brcm_avs_get_pmap(priv, &priv->pmap);
>> >> +     if (ret)
>> >> +             return ret;
>> >>
>> >> -     return brcm_avs_get_pmap(priv, &priv->pmap);
>> >> +     /*
>> >> +      * We can't use the P-state returned by brcm_avs_get_pmap(), since
>> >> +      * that's the initial P-state from when the P-map was downloaded to the
>> >> +      * AVS co-processor, not necessarily the P-state we are running at now.
>> >> +      * So, we get the current P-state explicitly.
>> >> +      */
>> >> +     return brcm_avs_get_pstate(priv, &priv->pmap.state);
>> >>  }
>> >>
>> >>  static int brcm_avs_resume(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> >
>> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Just wanted to follow up to see if this has been or will be picked up
>> for 4.10?
>
> For 4.10?  No way.

I was only thinking 4.10, because it's a fix for an existing driver.
But I am not complaining if it goes into 4.11.

>> I had a quick poke around some trees and did not see it
>> there.
>
> I'm not sure which trees you checked, but it is there in my linux-next branch.

Clearly, I didn't check there, my apologies.

Regards,
-Markus