On Tuesday 04 Aug 2020 at 12:16:56 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:

On 03-08-20, 16:24, Ionela Voinescu wrote:

quoted

Right, cpufreq_register_driver() should check that at least one of them
is present

quoted

(although currently cpufreq_register_driver() will return
-EINVAL if .fast_switch() alone is present - something to be fixed).

I think it is fine as there is no guarantee from cpufreq core if
.fast_switch() will get called and so target/target_index must be
present. We can't do fast-switch today without schedutil (as only that
enables it) and if a notifier gets registered before the driver, then
we are gone again.

quoted

Will do, on both accounts.

quoted

quoted

+		static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&cpufreq_set_freq_scale);
+		pr_debug("%s: Driver %s can provide frequency invariance.",
+			 __func__, driver->name);

I think a simpler print will work well too.

                pr_debug("Freq invariance enabled");

I think the right way of reporting this support is important here.

Yeah, we can't say it is enabled as you explained, though I meant
something else here then, i.e. getting rid of driver name and
unimportant stuff. What about this now:

pr_debug("supports frequency invariance");

This shall get printed as this finally:

cpufreq: supports frequency invariance

Will do!

Thanks,
Ionela.

-- 
viresh

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel