On 16-08-21, 20:56, Hector Yuan wrote:

On Tue, 2021-08-03 at 12:43 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:

quoted

On 30-07-21, 00:08, Hector Yuan wrote:

quoted

+	for (i = REG_FREQ_LUT_TABLE; i < REG_ARRAY_SIZE; i++)
+		c->reg_bases[i] = base + offsets[i];
+
+	ret = of_perf_domain_get_sharing_cpumask(index, "performance-domains",

Instead of parsing parsing "performance-domains" twice, I would rather
pass a CPU number here instead of index.

Sorry, could you give me more details? For now, will use index to parse
per-cpu to related cpus.You mean pass policy->cpu or? Thanks.

Yes, pass the cpu number from policy->cpu instead.

quoted

quoted

+	latency = readl_relaxed(c->reg_bases[REG_FREQ_LATENCY]);
+	if (!latency)
+		latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL;
+
+	/* us convert to ns */
+	policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = latency * 1000;

You want to multiple CPUFREQ_ETERNAL too ?

s/multiple/multiply/

Sorry about this.

Yes, may be different power domain with different transition latency.

quoted

quoted

+
+	policy->fast_switch_possible = true;
+
+	qos_request = kzalloc(sizeof(*qos_request), GFP_KERNEL);

This is a small structure, why not allocate it on stack instead ?

For qos part, we'd like to take more time to re-consider the SW flow and
put this to another patch set.Is this okay to you?

So you will drop entire qos stuff ? Fine by me.

-- 
viresh