Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:51:22 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq/opp: rework regulator initialization
Message-ID: <20190208115122.GA13043@e107155-lin>
References: <CGME20190207122255eucas1p1cdebed838c799eca46cce6a654a26187@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
 <20190207122227.19873-1-m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
 <20190208110053.GA7913@e107155-lin>
 <87302853-74cc-8eeb-6bd4-6338746e0738@samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87302853-74cc-8eeb-6bd4-6338746e0738@samsung.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 12:47:06PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> On 2019-02-08 12:00, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 01:22:25PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> This is a scenario that triggers the above issue:
> > [...]
> >> 1. system disables non-boot cpu's at the end of system suspend procedure,
> >> 2. this in turn deinitializes cpufreq drivers for the disabled cpus,
> >> 3. early in the system resume procedure all cpus are got back to online
> >>    state,
> >> 4. this in turn causes cpufreq to be initialized for the newly onlined
> >>    cpus,
> >> 5. cpufreq-dt acquires all its resources (clocks, regulators) during
> >>    ->init() callback,
> > This is strictly not just restricted to cpufreq-dt, but to any driver
> > supporting multiple policies. So we need a generic fix not just
> > cpufreq-dt specific.
>
> Could you point which other driver needs similar fix? Here in cpufreq-dt
> the problem was caused by using regulator api (indirectly) from
> ->init(). All other drivers, which have regulators support, are for old,
> obsolete, uni-processor systems, which don't have the problem of
> secondary cpu suspend during system suspend/resume cycle.
>

scmi_cpufreq for instance. We can fix that in driver my moving to polling
to get cpufreq_get_rate, but we support both polling and interrupt based.
We may wait for remote processor interrupt in get_rate.

--
Regards,
Sudeep