Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-84526-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <c165dd32-1e51-2fac-38ae-dd7300d36372@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 10:44:46 +0530
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix per-policy boost behavior
Content-Language: en-US
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
CC: <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, <marcan@marcan.st>, <sven@svenpeter.dev>,
        <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>, <rafael@kernel.org>, <xuwei5@hisilicon.com>,
        <zhanjie9@hisilicon.com>, <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        <cristian.marussi@arm.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, <quic_rgottimu@quicinc.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <asahi@lists.linux.dev>,
        <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240227165309.620422-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
 <20240228050703.lixqywrtxravegc6@vireshk-i7>
From: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240228050703.lixqywrtxravegc6@vireshk-i7>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2/28/24 10:37, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 27-02-24, 22:23, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>> Fix per-policy boost behavior by incorporating per-policy boost flag
>> in the policy->max calculation and setting the correct per-policy
>> boost_enabled value on devices that use cpufreq_enable_boost_support().
> 
> I don't see the problem explained anywhere and the patches look
> incorrect too. The drivers aren't supposed to update the
> policy->boose_enabled value.

Hey Viresh,
Thanks for taking time to review the series.

In the existing code, per-policy flags doesn't have any impact i.e.
if cpufreq_driver boost is enabled and one or more of the per-policy
boost is disabled, the cpufreq driver will behave as if boost is
enabled. I had to update the policy->boost_enabled value because we seem
to allow enabling cpufreq_driver.boost_enabled from the driver, but I
can drop that because it was just for book keeping. I didn't want
to include redundant info from another mail thread that I referenced in
the cover letter, but will add more info in the re-spin.

-Sibi

>