Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 4 May 2022 15:57:45 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>, manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Sven Peter <sven@svenpeter.dev>,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Apple SoC cpufreq driver
Message-ID: <20220504102745.fv5bl2cphq7ft4lm@vireshk-i7>
References: <20220504075153.185208-1-marcan@marcan.st>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220504075153.185208-1-marcan@marcan.st>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 04-05-22, 16:51, Hector Martin wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> Here's a second take on the cpufreq driver for Apple SoCs. This is a
> complete rewrite using a stand-alone cpufreq driver instead of using the
> cpufreq-dt infrastructure.
> 
> Since v1 we ran some experiments on the memory controller performance
> switching and it turns out it doesn't make a huge difference, so it
> makes sense to punt that feature to the future (perhaps once a proper
> memory controller driver exists for other reasons, e.g. for error
> handling).
> 
> One advantage of having a standalone cpufreq driver is that we can
> support fast switching. This also means any future interaction with
> the memory controller will probably use some bespoke mechanism instead
> of the genpd infrastructure, so we can keep the fast path without
> allowing sleeps/etc.
> 
> The driver is based on scpi-cpufreq.c, with some bits (e.g. the
> apple,freq-domain stuff) inspired by how cpufreq-qcom-hw does it.
> I'm not sure if that particular property should be described
> in a binding, since it goes in the cpu nodes (qcom doesn't have it
> anywhere...).

Hi Mani,

I can see that Rob asked you to add this somewhere, maybe in arm/cpu
stuff, but I don't think you ever sent a patch with that. What
happened ?

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201013171800.GA3716411@bogus/

-- 
viresh