Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] cpufreq: provide data for frequency-invariant load-tracking support
From: Sudeep Holla
Date: Thu Jul 13 2017 - 08:49:37 EST
On 12/07/17 05:09, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11-07-17, 16:06, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> But in the meantime we're convinced that cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() is
>> not the right place to call arch_set_freq_scale() since for (future)
>> arm/arm64 fast-switch driver, the return value of
>> cpufreq_driver->fast_switch() does not give us the information that the
>> frequency value did actually change.
> Yeah, I saw your discussion with Peter on #linux-rt IRC and TBH I wasn't aware
> that we are going to do fast switching that way. Just trying to get
> understanding of that idea a bit..
> So we will do fast switching from scheduler's point of view, i.e. we wouldn't
> schedule a kthread to change the frequency. But the real hardware still can't do
> that without sleeping, like if we have I2C somewhere in between. AFAIU, we will
> still have some kind of *software* bottom half to do that work, isn't it? And it
> wouldn't be that we have pushed some instructions to the hardware, which it can
> do a bit later.
No the platforms we are considering are only where a standard firmware
interface is provided and the firmware deals with all those I2C/PMIC crap.
> For example, the regulator may be accessed via I2C and we need to program that
> before changing the clock. So, it will be done by some software code only.
Software but just not Linux OSPM but some firmware(remote processors
presumably, can't imagine on the same processor though)