From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753252AbeEUML6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2018 08:11:58 -0400 Received: from pandora.armlinux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:39024 "EHLO pandora.armlinux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753133AbeEUMLu (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2018 08:11:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 13:11:41 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: ilialin@codeaurora.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Add Kryo CPU scaling driver Message-ID: <20180521121140.GO17671@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> References: <1526555955-29960-11-git-send-email-ilialin@codeaurora.org> <1526898690-4018-1-git-send-email-ilialin@codeaurora.org> <20180521105428.GM17671@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <000b01d3f0f3$aa961cc0$ffc25640$@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000b01d3f0f3$aa961cc0$ffc25640$@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 02:05:41PM +0300, ilialin@codeaurora.org wrote: > You are right. > cpu_dev_silver != cpu_dev_gold, and I found this with my tests as well. > Thank you. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Russell King - ARM Linux > > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 13:54 > > To: Ilia Lin > > Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux- > > pm@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org; linux- > > kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-soc@vger.kernel.org; linux- > > clk@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Add Kryo CPU scaling driver > > > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 01:31:30PM +0300, Ilia Lin wrote: > > > +#define SILVER_LEAD 0 > > > +#define GOLD_LEAD 2 > > > > Okay, two different values here, but "GOLD_LEAD" appears unused. > > > > > + cpu_dev_silver = get_cpu_device(SILVER_LEAD); > > > + if (NULL == cpu_dev_silver) > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > + > > > + cpu_dev_gold = get_cpu_device(SILVER_LEAD); > > > + if (NULL == cpu_dev_gold) > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > > get_cpu_device() takes the logical CPU number. So the above gets CPU 0 > > each time, and so cpu_dev_silver == cpu_dev_gold here. So what's the > > point of the second get_cpu_device() ? If it's supposed to be: > > > > cpu_dev_gold = get_cpu_device(GOLD_LEAD); > > > > That would get CPU 2, but in terms of these defines, it doesn't make that > > much sense. What exactly does "silver lead" and "gold lead" refer to in > these > > definitions? I think you still need to explain this. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up