Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-35071-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 10:15:16 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>, cristian.marussi@arm.com,
	rafael@kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	lukasz.luba@arm.com, sboyd@kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, quic_mdtipton@quicinc.com,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, nm@ti.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: scmi: Add boost frequency support
Message-ID: <Za-RtBrSxI-j4Jdx@bogus>
References: <20240117110443.2060704-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
 <20240123060827.a3vszziftj6pszt3@vireshk-i7>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240123060827.a3vszziftj6pszt3@vireshk-i7>

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:38:27AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-01-24, 16:34, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> > This series adds provision to mark dynamic opps as boost capable and adds
> > boost frequency support to the scmi cpufreq driver.
> > 
> > Depends on:
> > HW pressure v4: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/cover/20240109164655.626085-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org/
> > scmi notification v2: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/cover/20240117104116.2055349-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/
> > 
> > Sibi Sankar (3):
> >   OPP: Extend dev_pm_opp_data with turbo support
> >   firmware: arm_scmi: Add support for marking certain frequencies as
> >     boost
> >   cpufreq: scmi: Enable boost support
> 
> Sudeep, please lemme know if you are okay with the changes. Will apply
> them.

I was planning to look at it once Lukasz/Dietmar confirm that this concept
doesn't change anything fundamental in the way EAS related changes work
today. I know I suggested the change as that seem to be right way to do
but I haven't analysed if this has any negative impact on the existing
features as this change will impact all the existing platform with OPPs
above sustained performance/frequency advertised from the SCMI platform
firmware.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep