From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D22B11E480; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 02:08:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736993306; cv=none; b=N9218L8RKvFFj+mdle743COydkPU3sLwb2pGIhymBD6eCjGniY246lF5NhQE+OEL/+SBXynQ3SeY/elXlYsn0cU65gculHfIllGC7ZhVQgQEWl6HfZQIXfVtaqlqguZq8IrIiEgt4yF/SkRPD43dfqOZ5w22kC3mRdhWyYRLb/o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736993306; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ISZ/r+9sXHU4PlqiSCDo21HNThB3R2YXCh4o+Ce98DQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=O+QGz32yB8tkwBTo+4AUuKO8KEFrwqwepo2xxBnjk8tgzxOPTQmJp32pipN92ajAXaern5KqtzlUWKqVM1SkwHMpLSuXhKHAz4z1l0s9bmMa2UxwX5E71lWSxrXjVU8VXX42vJsokifn+MgjH52m1sfhXcPvbcIHi2a+Ucjc4ck= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.254]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4YYR7P2LGpzrSV4; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 10:06:41 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemh100008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.93]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6556318032E; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 10:08:21 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.121.90] (10.67.121.90) by kwepemh100008.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 10:08:20 +0800 Message-ID: <9423f959-6d93-4908-ac2a-a9e23c69f2db@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 10:08:20 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: Introduce a more generic way to boost when cpu is going online To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: , , , , , , , References: <20250115100123.241110-1-zhenglifeng1@huawei.com> From: "zhenglifeng (A)" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.180) To kwepemh100008.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.93) On 2025/1/15 20:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 11:01 AM Lifeng Zheng wrote: >> >> Since commit f37a4d6b4a2c ("cpufreq: Fix per-policy boost behavior on >> SoCs using cpufreq_boost_set_sw()") and commit 102fa9c4b439 ("cpufreq: >> Allow drivers to advertise boost enabled"), per-policy boost flag has >> already been set to mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during >> initialization. However, the current implementation doesn't work for all >> cpufreq drivers and may fail in certain situation. A more generic >> implementation is needed. > > Can you please be more specific here? > > What happens, why it happens and why do you think the way to go is to > reimplement this? I've explained this in commit log of patch 2. But if you think it is better to palce here too, I'll do that in v2.