Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] cpufreq: add resolve_freq driver callback

[Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:55:14AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-05-16, 19:52, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > Cpufreq governors may need to know what a particular target frequency
> > maps to in the driver without necessarily wanting to set the frequency.
> > Support this operation via a new cpufreq API,
> > cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq().
> > 
> > The above API will call a new cpufreq driver callback, resolve_freq(),
> > if it has been registered by the driver. If that callback has not been
> > registered and a frequency table is available then the frequency table
> > is walked using cpufreq_frequency_table_target().
> > 
> > UINT_MAX is returned if no driver callback or frequency table is
> > available.
> 
> Why should we return UINT_MAX here? We should return target_freq, no ?

My goal here was to have the system operate in this case in a manner
that is obviously not optimized (running at fmax), so the platform owner
realizes that the cpufreq driver doesn't fully support the schedutil
governor.

I was originally going to just return an error code but that also means
having to check for it which would be nice to avoid if possible on this
fast path.

> 
> > Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Steve Muckle <smuckle@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/linux/cpufreq.h   | 11 +++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 36 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index 77d77a4e3b74..3b44f4bdc071 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -1849,6 +1849,31 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_driver_fast_switch);
> >  
> > +unsigned int cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > +					 unsigned int target_freq)
> > +{
> > +	struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
> > +	int index, retval;
> > +
> > +	clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max);
> > +
> > +	if (cpufreq_driver->resolve_freq)
> > +		return cpufreq_driver->resolve_freq(policy, target_freq);
> > +
> > +	freq_table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(policy->cpu);
> 
> I have sent a separate patch to provide a light weight alternative to
> this. If that gets accepted, we can switch over to using it.

Sure.

> 
> > +	if (!freq_table)
> > +		return UINT_MAX;
> > +
> > +	retval = cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, freq_table,
> > +						target_freq, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L,
> > +						&index);
> > +	if (retval)
> > +		return UINT_MAX;
> > +
> > +	return freq_table[index].frequency;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq);
> > +
> >  /* Must set freqs->new to intermediate frequency */
> >  static int __target_intermediate(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >  				 struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs, int index)
> > diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> > index 4e81e08db752..675f17f98e75 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> > @@ -271,6 +271,13 @@ struct cpufreq_driver {
> >  	int		(*target_intermediate)(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >  					       unsigned int index);
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Return the driver-supported frequency that a particular target
> > +	 * frequency maps to (does not set the new frequency).
> > +	 */
> > +	unsigned int	(*resolve_freq)(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > +					unsigned int target_freq);
> 
> We have 3 categories of cpufreq-drivers today:
> 1. setpolicy drivers: They don't use the cpufreq governors we are
>    working on.
> 2. non-setpolicy drivers:
>   A. with ->target_index() callback, these will always provide a
>      freq-table.
>   B. with ->target() callback, ONLY these should be allowed to provide
>      the ->resolve_freq() callback and no one else.
> 
> And so I would suggest adding an additional check in
> cpufreq_register_driver() to catch incorrect usage of this callback.

I'll reply to this in the next email on patch 2...

thanks,
Steve