Hi,

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 05:23:34PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:

Hi Taniya,

Both the patches are missing v9 in their subject line - this threw off
patchwork when trying to download the patches.

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:06 PM Taniya Das [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Add QCOM cpufreq firmware device bindings for Qualcomm Technology Inc's
SoCs. This is required for managing the cpu frequency transitions which are
controlled by the hardware engine.

I tested these patches on the sdm845-mtp against 4.19 and found that
the frequency gets stuck at the highest opp (the boost frequency)
after running a couple of 'yes > /dev/null &' instances. Have you
tested these against a mainline kernel?

See cpufreq statistics below:

linaro-test [rc=0]# cat policy?/scaling_cur_freq
300000
2803200

linaro-test [rc=0]# cat policy?/stats/time_in_state
300000 100840
403200 388
480000 71
576000 54
652800 22
748800 11
825600 5
902400 5
979200 9
1056000 3
1132800 2
1228800 5
1324800 8
1420800 2
1516800 1
1612800 0
1689600 0
1766400 392
825600 22048
902400 21
979200 4
1056000 15
1209600 6
1286400 0
1363200 1
1459200 0
1536000 0
1612800 1
1689600 0
1766400 0
1843200 2
1920000 2
1996800 0
2092800 0
2169600 0
2246400 0
2323200 0
2400000 0
2476800 0
2553600 0
2649600 0
2707200 0
2764800 0
2784000 0
2803200 79718

I can repro this on SDM845 with a v4.19 kernel.

Since the little cores don't have a boost frequency I think maxing out
can be expected with a high workload and no thermal throttling.
However the big cores have a boost frequency (2.803 MHz), so the
driver shouldn't be stuck at it. Though in practice I also wonder if
the ~1% 'boost' makes a big difference in terms of performance or CPU
overload ...

Cheers

Matthias