Re: [PATCH V2] cpufreq: tegra186: Fix initial frequency

[Jon Hunter]

On 28/10/2020 04:11, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 26-10-20, 12:57, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Thinking about this some more, what are your thoughts on making the
>> following change? 
>>
>> Basically, if the driver sets the CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK,
> 
> This flag only means that the platform would like the core to check
> the currently programmed frequency and get it in sync with the table.

Yes exactly.

>> then I wonder if we should not fail if the frequency return by
>>> get() is not known.
> 
> When do we fail if the frequency isn't known ? That's the case where
> we try to set it to one from the table.

Currently, if the frequency is not known, we fail right before we do the
initial frequency check [0].

> But (looking at your change), ->get() can't really return 0. We depend
> on it to get us the exact frequency the hardware is programmed at
> instead of reading a cached value in the software.

Actually it can and it does currently. Note in tegra186_cpufreq_get()
the variable 'freq' is initialised to 0, and if no match is found, then
it returns 0. This is what happens currently on some Tegra186 boards.

>>> This would fix the problem I see on Tegra186
>> where the initial boot frequency may not be in the frequency table.
> 
> With current mainline, what's the problem you see now ? Sorry I missed
> track of it a bit :)

No problem, this has been an on-going saga now for sometime.

Cheers
Jon

[0]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c#n1429
[1]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/tegra186-cpufreq.c#n95

-- 
nvpublic