Re: [PATCH V2 9/9] cpufreq: scmi: Use .register_em() callback

[Lukasz Luba]

On 8/11/21 3:39 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 Aug 2021 at 15:09:13 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
> > On 8/11/21 2:17 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 11 Aug 2021 at 17:28:47 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > Set the newly added .register_em() callback to register with the EM
> > > > after the cpufreq policy is properly initialized.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > > >    1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> > > > index 75f818d04b48..b916c9e22921 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> > > > @@ -22,7 +22,9 @@
> > > >    struct scmi_data {
> > > >    	int domain_id;
> > > > +	int nr_opp;
> > > >    	struct device *cpu_dev;
> > > > +	cpumask_var_t opp_shared_cpus;
> > >
> > > Can we use policy->related_cpus and friends directly in the callback
> >
> > Unfortunately not. This tricky setup code was introduced because we may
> > have a platform with per-CPU policy, so single bit set in
> > policy->related_cpus, but we want EAS to be still working on set
> > of CPUs. That's why we construct temporary cpumask and pass it to EM.
>
> Aha, I see this now. Hmm, those platforms better have AMUs then,
> otherwise PELT signals will be wonky ...

That's the plan, to have the AMUs. We suggest that, but reality would
tell... ;)

> I was going to suggest using dev_pm_opp_get_sharing_cpus() from the
> callback instead, but maybe that's overkill as we'd need to allocate a
> temporary cpumask and all. So n/m this patch should be fine as is.