Driver is guaranteed to be present on a call to cpufreq_parse_governor()
and there is no need to check for !cpufreq_driver. Drop it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Its always same as policy->policy, and there is no need to keep another
copy of it. Remove it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Its always same as policy->governor, and there is no need to keep
another copy of it. Remove it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
'user_policy' caches properties of a policy that are set by userspace.
And these must be updated only if cpufreq core was successful in
updating them based on request from user space.
In store_scaling_governor(), we are updating user_policy.policy and
user_policy.governor even if cpufreq_set_policy() failed. That's
incorrect.
Fix this by updating user_policy.* only if we were successful in
updating the properties.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
cpufreq_get_policy() is useful if the pointer to policy isn't available
in advance. But if it is available, then there is no need to call
cpufreq_get_policy(). Directly use memcpy() to copy the policy.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
What's being done from CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE, can also be done with
CPUFREQ_ADJUST. There is nothing special with CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE
notifier.
Kill CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE and fix its usage sites.
This also updates the numbering of notifier events to remove holes.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Mediatek MT8173 is an ARMv8 based quad-core (2*Cortex-A53 and
2*Cortex-A72) SoC with duall clusters. For each cluster, two voltage
inputs, Vproc and Vsram are supplied by two regulators. For the big
cluster, two regulators come from different PMICs. In this case, when
scaling voltage inputs of the cluster, the voltages of two regulator
inputs need to be controlled by software explicitly under the SoC
specific limitation:
100mV < Vsram - Vproc < 200mV
which is called 'voltage tracking' mechanism. And when scaling the
frequency of cluster clock input, the input MUX need to be parented to
another "intermediate" stable PLL first and reparented to the original
PLL once the original PLL is stable at the target frequency. This patch
implements those mechanisms to enable CPU DVFS support for Mediatek
MT8173 SoC.
Signed-off-by: Pi-Cheng Chen <pi-cheng.chen@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Coverity scanning performed on intel_pstate.c shows possible
overflow when doing left shifting:
val = pstate << 8;
since pstate is of type integer, while val is of u64, left shifting
pstate might lead to potential loss of upper bits. Say, if pstate equals
0x4000 0000, after pstate << 8 we will get zero assigned to val.
Although pstate will not likely be that big, this patch cast the left
operand to u64 before performing the left shift, to avoid complaining
from Coverity.
Reported-by: Coquard, Christophe <christophe.coquard@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
This check was originally added by commit 9c9a43ed27 ("[CPUFREQ]
return error when failing to set minfreq").It attempt to return an error
on obviously incorrect limits when we echo xxx >.../scaling_max,min_freq
Actually we just need check if new_policy->min > new_policy->max.
Because at least one of max/min is copied from cpufreq_get_policy().
For example, when we echo xxx > .../scaling_min_freq, new_policy is
copied from policy in cpufreq_get_policy. new_policy->max is same with
policy->max. new_policy->min is set to a new value.
Let me explain it in deduction method, first statement in if ():
new_policy->min > policy->max
policy->max == new_policy->max
==> new_policy->min > new_policy->max
second statement in if():
new_policy->max < policy->min
policy->max < policy->min
==>new_policy->min > new_policy->max (induction method)
So we have proved that we only need check if new_policy->min >
new_policy->max.
After apply this patch, we can also modify ->min and ->max at same time
if new freq range is very much different from current freq range. For
example, if current freq range is 480000-960000, then we want to set
this range to 1120000-2240000, we would fail in the past because
new_policy->min > policy->max. As long as the cpufreq range is valid, we
has no reason to reject the user. So correct the check to avoid such
case.
Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
To protect against races with concurrent CPU online/offline, call
get_online_cpus() before registering a cpufreq driver.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
The recover_policy is unsed in cpufreq_online() to indicate whether
a new policy object is created or an existing one is reinitialized.
The "recover" part of the name is slightly confusing (it should be
"reinitialization" rather than "recovery") and the logical not (!)
operator is applied to it in almost all of the checks it is used in,
so replace that variable with a new one called "new_policy" that
will be true in the case of a new policy creation.
While at it, drop one of the labels that is jumped to from only
one spot.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To separate the CPU online interface from the CPU device
registration, split cpufreq_online() out of cpufreq_add_dev()
and make cpufreq_cpu_callback() call the former, while
cpufreq_add_dev() itself will only be used as the CPU device
addition subsystem interface callback.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Suggested-by: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
If frequency is throttled due to OCC reset then cpus will be in Psafe
frequency, so restore the frequency on all cpus to policy->cur when
OCCs are active again. And if frequency is throttled due to Pmax
capping then restore the frequency of all the cpus in the chip on
unthrottling.
Signed-off-by: Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
On a reset cycle of OCC, although the system retires from safe
frequency state the local pstate is not restored to Pmin or last
requested pstate. Now if the cpufreq governor initiates a pstate
change, the local pstate will be in Psafe and we will be reporting a
false positive when we are not throttled.
So in powernv_cpufreq_throttle_check() remove the condition which
checks if local pstate is less than Pmin while checking for Psafe
frequency. If the cpus are forced to Psafe then PMSR.psafe_mode_active
bit will be set. So, when OCCs become active this bit will be cleared.
Let us just rely on this bit for reporting throttling.
Signed-off-by: Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Re-evaluate the chip's throttled state on recieving OCC_THROTTLE
notification by executing *throttle_check() on any one of the cpu on
the chip. This is a sanity check to verify if we were indeed
throttled/unthrottled after receiving OCC_THROTTLE notification.
We cannot call *throttle_check() directly from the notification
handler because we could be handling chip1's notification in chip2. So
initiate an smp_call to execute *throttle_check(). We are irq-disabled
in the notification handler, so use a worker thread to smp_call
throttle_check() on any of the cpu in the chipmask.
Signed-off-by: Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
OCC is an On-Chip-Controller which takes care of power and thermal
safety of the chip. During runtime due to power failure or
overtemperature the OCC may throttle the frequencies of the CPUs to
remain within the power budget.
We want the cpufreq driver to be aware of such situations to be able
to report the reason to the user. We register to opal_message_notifier
to receive OCC messages from opal.
powernv_cpufreq_throttle_check() reports any frequency throttling and
this patch will report the reason or event that caused throttling. We
can be throttled if OCC is reset or OCC limits Pmax due to power or
thermal reasons. We are also notified of unthrottling after an OCC
reset or if OCC restores Pmax on the chip.
Signed-off-by: Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
The On-Chip-Controller(OCC) can throttle cpu frequency by reducing the
max allowed frequency for that chip if the chip exceeds its power or
temperature limits. As Pmax capping is a chip level condition report
this throttling behavior at chip level and also do not set the global
'throttled' on Pmax capping instead set the per-chip throttled
variable. Report unthrottling if Pmax is restored after throttling.
This patch adds a structure to store chip id and throttled state of
the chip.
Signed-off-by: Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Change cpufreq_policy_alloc() to take a CPU number instead of a CPU
device pointer as its argument, as it is the only function called by
cpufreq_add_dev() taking a device pointer argument at this point.
That will allow us to split the CPU online part from cpufreq_add_dev()
more cleanly going forward.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
The related_cpus mask includes CPUs whose cpufreq_cpu_data per-CPU
pointers have been set the the given policy. Since those pointers
are only set at the policy creation time and unset when the policy
is deleted, the related_cpus should not be updated between those
two operations.
For this reason, avoid updating it whenever the first of the
"related" CPUs goes online.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
The dev argument of cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() and
cpufreq_add_dev_interface() is not used by any of them,
so drop it.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
The leftover out_release_rwsem label in cpufreq_add_dev() is not
necessary any more and confusing, so drop it.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Notice that when cpufreq_policy_restore() is called, its per-CPU
cpufreq_cpu_data variable has been already dereferenced and if that
variable is not NULL, the policy local pointer in cpufreq_add_dev()
contains its value.
Therefore it is not necessary to dereference it again and the
policy pointer can be used directly. Moreover, if that pointer
is not NULL, the policy is inactive (or the previous check would
have made us return from cpufreq_add_dev()) so the restoration
code from cpufreq_policy_restore() can be moved to that point
in cpufreq_add_dev().
Do that and drop cpufreq_policy_restore().
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Since __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare() and __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish()
are about CPU offline rather than about CPU removal, rename them to
cpufreq_offline_prepare() and cpufreq_offline_finish(), respectively.
Also change their argument from a struct device pointer to a CPU
number, because they use the CPU number only internally anyway
and make them void as their return values are ignored.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Viresh Kumar
Pi-Cheng Chen
Ethan Zhao
Kristen Carlson Accardi
Chen Yu
Pan Xinhui
Rafael J. Wysocki
Shilpasri G Bhat