Message ID | 1374770011-22171-7-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Changes Requested, archived |
Headers | show |
On 25 July 2013 22:03, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com> wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c > index 9ae1871..175172d9 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c > @@ -270,6 +270,9 @@ static int exynos_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > static struct freq_attr *exynos_cpufreq_attr[] = { > &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_available_freqs, > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW Use ARM_EXYNOS_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW instead. > + &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_boost_freqs, > +#endif > NULL, > }; > > @@ -332,6 +335,9 @@ static int __init exynos_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > locking_frequency = exynos_getspeed(0); > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW > + exynos_driver.boost_supported = true; > +#endif So, why here and not in the definition of exynos_driver? > register_pm_notifier(&exynos_cpufreq_nb); > > if (cpufreq_register_driver(&exynos_driver)) { > -- > 1.7.10.4 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:56:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar wrote, > On 25 July 2013 22:03, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com> wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c > > b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c index 9ae1871..175172d9 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c > > @@ -270,6 +270,9 @@ static int exynos_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct > > cpufreq_policy *policy) > > > > static struct freq_attr *exynos_cpufreq_attr[] = { > > &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_available_freqs, > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [*] > > Use ARM_EXYNOS_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW instead. For the reasons explained at [PATCH v6 5/8] I would prefer to leave [*] here. > > > + &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_boost_freqs, > > +#endif > > NULL, > > }; > > > > @@ -332,6 +335,9 @@ static int __init exynos_cpufreq_probe(struct > > platform_device *pdev) > > > > locking_frequency = exynos_getspeed(0); > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW > > + exynos_driver.boost_supported = true; > > +#endif > > So, why here and not in the definition of exynos_driver? Right. I will move this to struct cpufreq_driver exynos_driver. > > > register_pm_notifier(&exynos_cpufreq_nb); > > > > if (cpufreq_register_driver(&exynos_driver)) { > > -- > > 1.7.10.4 > >
On 26 July 2013 16:56, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:56:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar wrote, >> On 25 July 2013 22:03, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c >> > b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c index 9ae1871..175172d9 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c >> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c >> > @@ -270,6 +270,9 @@ static int exynos_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct >> > cpufreq_policy *policy) >> > >> > static struct freq_attr *exynos_cpufreq_attr[] = { >> > &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_available_freqs, >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [*] >> >> Use ARM_EXYNOS_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW instead. > > For the reasons explained at [PATCH v6 5/8] I would prefer to leave [*] > here. I don't see how that reasoning fit here. This is exynos code and you must use exynos specific boost Kconfig option here.. Otherwise It might be enabled without Exynos specific option, if somebody else has selected CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW in a multi platform kernel, -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:56:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote, > On 25 July 2013 22:03, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com> wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c > > b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c index 9ae1871..175172d9 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c > > @@ -270,6 +270,9 @@ static int exynos_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct > > cpufreq_policy *policy) > > > > static struct freq_attr *exynos_cpufreq_attr[] = { > > &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_available_freqs, > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW > > Use ARM_EXYNOS_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW instead. Ok, the ARM_EXYNOS_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW looks more appropriate here. > > > + &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_boost_freqs, > > +#endif > > NULL, > > }; > > > > @@ -332,6 +335,9 @@ static int __init exynos_cpufreq_probe(struct > > platform_device *pdev) > > > > locking_frequency = exynos_getspeed(0); > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW > > + exynos_driver.boost_supported = true; > > +#endif > > So, why here and not in the definition of exynos_driver? Ok, I will move the above code to struct cpufreq_driver exynos_driver > > > register_pm_notifier(&exynos_cpufreq_nb); > > > > if (cpufreq_register_driver(&exynos_driver)) { > > -- > > 1.7.10.4 > >
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c index 9ae1871..175172d9 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c @@ -270,6 +270,9 @@ static int exynos_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) static struct freq_attr *exynos_cpufreq_attr[] = { &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_available_freqs, +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW + &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_boost_freqs, +#endif NULL, }; @@ -332,6 +335,9 @@ static int __init exynos_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) locking_frequency = exynos_getspeed(0); +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW + exynos_driver.boost_supported = true; +#endif register_pm_notifier(&exynos_cpufreq_nb); if (cpufreq_register_driver(&exynos_driver)) {