Received: by 2002:a25:6193:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id v141csp4445561ybb; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:29:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJnRzlBKNPO5z/2ejZJjyF0BjNsWtkI1nVHBC4OtAT8g3ds5C2Z99TiWWyt770MkUbp756S X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:158c:: with SMTP id k12mr375416ejd.7.1586874552531; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:29:12 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1586874552; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=yWXRdCiTyJHsZ+1Q2Oodh8sS/hpgNlEmnj7Mm16lqFp6+/sdOM37d9qDtRJpPdPv+z RHqhSn9t0/Ih9A2qlX6Feu2YIxvy79VzHTfKy7GC3l89ja1x2IX7NA5dZ04LQmSeg6O2 pUJEIJZfLFaSUYOY8IHmS3GKTFoX1sNJB5msOzBP8UIc2gHjTyVlulD2zqsJFU1V8WF8 fYXQ66ptLO+xCQfrr+b7zTAJSJn9d6I/V+qc+B3w3TcrLzIQtC8T1t8MKGT60nO1ASNk i+urot1gDGbkZlsz7rn5kTBs/IbzJDDlCPkpX+RtyvJF/Mx9ZYiWOruFGmnF4hp4ZjXv JV3Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=y6dutUz+30OTRDfg3t8Pl2gIYhm9Chd9KMn0w/7vtgI=; b=DKjf7SRTUhXAed8gM5Wyp6aCm/fz0rv7sTX/eZlh2XYe5t7cWV6l3Qt6Ab+1NeL/XB QaG+W76UbiZyxyu3lCy4zVEMR+5vC4sekzc1uaW+4Qly3GZv2okiDpzG2HaNxv0WAGC2 LTjv/JJurgDVmd3AOJ3P5lt4+igpGVQ7jhR+K9KN5Fn3x0HeGko2Hf5yPHDNZSTtLDDB c7O4WLXUSEhMbtRQF+Wn0TEPtWXMqPaSK+XSBI2T/N/ZRF7AvsBJQuyqlx5IuO5exRCb 7a904kOkMvj/TCXZ1W7oBa3pHhxAJ4I2Wj4dBP8pZBzuebOf9cqDl6RtL9mch9FNUduK WT9Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=VouzMP8c; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f11si5709392ejb.492.2020.04.14.07.28.49; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=VouzMP8c; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729113AbgDNFpJ (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 14 Apr 2020 01:45:09 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41742 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729064AbgDNFpI (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2020 01:45:08 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x433.google.com (mail-pf1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED3D8C0A3BE2 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 22:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x433.google.com with SMTP id r20so3923074pfh.9 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 22:45:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=y6dutUz+30OTRDfg3t8Pl2gIYhm9Chd9KMn0w/7vtgI=; b=VouzMP8cBdaVTNf4cBS+Lqgxn2DGWJ9tqJdiwXtybFJ9IMcnceKdjCSFOLtQJx5kk7 OJbQMxqKIDYHxAXFRyrKdhpX7ngXcR25NtYh1aZFT7UzeXdRu4OYfsGproJYrLxLH/V6 aCKTIhEmArxjdu5ZPoaULSawf55qspM3wlBMnzbNewddQ0HAFHdul2uxm0hvB3Zi+yqF RlSE6c6ebdpxtAa9+8gZXKTUiup4Gkq1FX4rE7cdiL6X88x6dAFyhdJSnxp1p0rGS2E3 osTeZFeRIWwv7MC9Yxt5ujqApF2SQB1F0C7GNJ7PmpTBa2htp1t2XLYxff69bLgKFiWz RWtg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=y6dutUz+30OTRDfg3t8Pl2gIYhm9Chd9KMn0w/7vtgI=; b=bNKaV9sBvQK0njtvEsn9RMmi3NM/pcj6jPbJ+CvW4MGaAIRiSttXhANxddttXrU3FV HuD39KSC76xk9cqi8/URGW/5zKHEO3LwaXXBS8lg9MXRjO3IsHtpe9YBraoP4g6LamlU +BonhwlrLUEtR5kAlOAQoAONOey4mOqE1uM7JuUpsg4KKIEymh+AKKa/o+FrX9kutACr dYoXwvQkCsU5j9BIH4LszodaDS8+6xzorWOIAt3r7DCFG/f7Cu0sNYPhmq/Y5mIu+3Ar Qwt90u/RYAG4rPJD8YyOVHxOxdSNaGgCxzXgl0A2R2HO7padRvaU8WnbKM25XK8qZbzq QsZw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pua9nVyyQdNOb0ql6YUgsAKAj4kdYuzE5p9TcpZOcUgV9BZtSV04 chtqvsVoMP9Fy+qHyroYyLoccg== X-Received: by 2002:a62:e80e:: with SMTP id c14mr12551415pfi.83.1586843107252; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 22:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([122.171.118.46]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t103sm10781479pjb.46.2020.04.13.22.45.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Apr 2020 22:45:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 11:15:04 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Sumit Gupta Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, thierry.reding@gmail.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com, talho@nvidia.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bbasu@nvidia.com, mperttunen@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [TEGRA194_CPUFREQ Patch 2/3] cpufreq: Add Tegra194 cpufreq driver Message-ID: <20200414054504.e3qn2cnxqur4sclw@vireshk-i7> References: <20200326115023.xy3n5bl7uetuw7mx@vireshk-i7> <20200406025549.qfwzlk3745y3r274@vireshk-i7> <3ab4136c-8cca-c2f9-d286-b82dac23e720@nvidia.com> <20200408055301.jhvu5bc2luu3b5qr@vireshk-i7> <08307e54-0e14-14a3-7d6a-d59e1e04a683@nvidia.com> <20200409074415.twpzu2n4frqlde7b@vireshk-i7> <00390070-38a1-19aa-ca59-42c4658bee7e@nvidia.com> <20200413062141.a6hmwipexhv3sctq@vireshk-i7> <64b609f1-efb1-425f-a91a-27a492bd3ec4@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <64b609f1-efb1-425f-a91a-27a492bd3ec4@nvidia.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 13-04-20, 17:50, Sumit Gupta wrote: > This was done considering long delay value as explained previously. > Do you think that smp_call_function_single() would be better than work queue > here? Don't work with assumptions, you should test both and see which one works better. Workqueue should never be faster than smp_call_function_single() with my understanding. -- viresh