On 17-02-21, 00:24, Ionela Voinescu wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
index 1e47dfd465f8..47fca7376c93 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c

@@ -240,7 +240,6 @@ static struct scale_freq_data amu_sfd = {
 
 static void amu_fie_setup(const struct cpumask *cpus)
 {
-	bool invariant;
 	int cpu;
 
 	/* We are already set since the last insmod of cpufreq driver */

@@ -257,25 +256,10 @@ static void amu_fie_setup(const struct cpumask *cpus)
 
 	cpumask_or(amu_fie_cpus, amu_fie_cpus, cpus);
 
-	invariant = topology_scale_freq_invariant();
-
-	/* We aren't fully invariant yet */
-	if (!invariant && !cpumask_equal(amu_fie_cpus, cpu_present_mask))
-		return;
-

You still need these checks, otherwise you could end up with only part
of the CPUs setting a scale factor, when only part of the CPUs support
AMUs and there is no cpufreq support for FIE.

Another look at it and here goes another reason (hope I don't have
another in-code comment somewhere else to kill this one) :)

We don't need to care for the reason you gave (which is a valid reason
otherwise), as we are talking specifically about amu_fie_setup() here
and it gets called from cpufreq policy-notifier. i.e. we won't support
AMUs without cpufreq being there in the first place and the same goes
for cppc-driver.

Does that sound reasonable ?

-- 
viresh

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