Re: [PATCH V3 4/4] cpufreq: CPPC: Add support for frequency invariance

[Viresh Kumar]

On 25-06-21, 09:54, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> On Thursday 24 Jun 2021 at 18:34:18 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 24-06-21, 10:48, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> > > On Monday 21 Jun 2021 at 14:49:37 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > The Frequency Invariance Engine (FIE) is providing a frequency scaling
> > > > correction factor that helps achieve more accurate load-tracking.
> > > [..]
> > > > +static void cppc_cpufreq_cpu_fie_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct cppc_freq_invariance *cppc_fi;
> > > > +	int cpu;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (cppc_cpufreq_driver.get == hisi_cppc_cpufreq_get_rate)
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* policy->cpus will be empty here, use related_cpus instead */
> > > > +	topology_clear_scale_freq_source(SCALE_FREQ_SOURCE_CPPC, policy->related_cpus);
> > > > +
> > > > +	for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->related_cpus) {
> > > > +		cppc_fi = &per_cpu(cppc_freq_inv, cpu);
> > > 
> > > Do you think it might be worth having here something like:
> > > 
> > > 		if (!cppc_fi->cpu_data)
> > > 			continue;
> > > 
> > > This would be to protect against cases where the platform does not boot
> > > with all CPUs or the module is loaded after some have already been
> > > offlined. Unlikely, but..
> > 
> > Even in that case policy->cpus will contain all offline+online CPUs (at ->init()
> > time), isn't it ?
> > 
> 
> Right, my bad. I missed cpumask_and(policy->cpus, policy->cpus,
> cpu_online_mask) being done after init(). It logically seems a bit
> wrong, but drivers are in control of setting policy->cpus and acting on
> it, and in this case the driver does the right thing.

Do you want me to re-add your Reviewed-by here ?

-- 
viresh