Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 17 Aug 2021 09:12:06 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Hector Yuan <hector.yuan@mediatek.com>
Cc:     linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, wsd_upstream@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/2] cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add support for CPUFREQ HW
Message-ID: <20210817034206.hmpjdz4bqvwxfn3c@vireshk-i7>
References: <1627574891-26514-1-git-send-email-hector.yuan@mediatek.com>
 <1627574891-26514-3-git-send-email-hector.yuan@mediatek.com>
 <20210803071302.b4ttoqgqdq4dfmwe@vireshk-i7>
 <1629118594.3246.13.camel@mtkswgap22>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1629118594.3246.13.camel@mtkswgap22>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 16-08-21, 20:56, Hector Yuan wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-08-03 at 12:43 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 30-07-21, 00:08, Hector Yuan wrote:
> > > +	for (i = REG_FREQ_LUT_TABLE; i < REG_ARRAY_SIZE; i++)
> > > +		c->reg_bases[i] = base + offsets[i];
> > > +
> > > +	ret = of_perf_domain_get_sharing_cpumask(index, "performance-domains",
> > 
> > Instead of parsing parsing "performance-domains" twice, I would rather
> > pass a CPU number here instead of index.
> > 
> Sorry, could you give me more details? For now, will use index to parse
> per-cpu to related cpus.You mean pass policy->cpu or? Thanks.

Yes, pass the cpu number from policy->cpu instead.

> > > +	latency = readl_relaxed(c->reg_bases[REG_FREQ_LATENCY]);
> > > +	if (!latency)
> > > +		latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL;
> > > +
> > > +	/* us convert to ns */
> > > +	policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = latency * 1000;
> > 
> > You want to multiple CPUFREQ_ETERNAL too ?

s/multiple/multiply/

Sorry about this.

> Yes, may be different power domain with different transition latency.
> > > +
> > > +	policy->fast_switch_possible = true;
> > > +
> > > +	qos_request = kzalloc(sizeof(*qos_request), GFP_KERNEL);
> > 
> > This is a small structure, why not allocate it on stack instead ?
> > 
> For qos part, we'd like to take more time to re-consider the SW flow and
> put this to another patch set.Is this okay to you?

So you will drop entire qos stuff ? Fine by me.

-- 
viresh