mbox series

[0/2] cpufreq: Introduce a more generic way to boost when cpu is going online

Message ID 20250115100123.241110-1-zhenglifeng1@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series cpufreq: Introduce a more generic way to boost when cpu is going online | expand

Message

Lifeng Zheng Jan. 15, 2025, 10:01 a.m. UTC
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.

Lifeng Zheng (2):
  cpufreq: Fix re-boost issue after hotplugging a cpu
  cpufreq: Introduce a more generic way to set default per-policy boost
    flag

 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Rafael J. Wysocki Jan. 15, 2025, 12:53 p.m. UTC | #1
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 11:01 AM Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@huawei.com> 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?